How many of you would still own the Taycan if it wasn’t better for the environment than a combustion car?

jheard

Well-Known Member
First Name
James
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
30
Location
Sussex
Vehicles
Tesla MXP100D. Taycan 4S
Country flag
For those of you who saw my last post, I’m debating on going EV with the taycan and just want to get some more insight. How many of y’all picked the taycan over it’s competitor because it’s more eco friendly? I understand that EV’s are more eco friendly but I don’t want that to be a deciding factor in which car I choose since I prefer fun over efficiency. I also just want to see how many people TRULY bought the taycan because it’s a better car, and not because they wanted to save the environment. There’s nothing wrong with picking a car for it being cleaner, but personally I could care less about the emissions my car makes (for better or worse) and want to make sure that the Taycan hype isn’t attributed to its emissions numbers being masked behind “it’s way better driving than ICE cars”.
Nope I have had a Tesla for last 3+ years and the environment has never been a buying factor for me. Performance, tech, fun and something different is how I choose my cars and the Taycan was no different other than having lived with an EV for a few years and having a wall charger at home it made the decision easier.
 

bswets

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
13
Location
49504
Vehicles
Taycan 4S
Country flag
EV was a pre-requisite for me for a daily driver. I’ve owned several hybrids- an Insight, a Prius, an Accord Hybrid, and my last car was an A3 e-tron. But I also had an ‘88 Carrera.

The Taycan gives me the best of both worlds. I was set on buying another 911 as a summer car, but then I took a Taycan for a spin. I realized that I could have it all, year-round. Financially sound? No. Best decision ever? Yep.
 

porsche_coyote

Well-Known Member
First Name
Wiley
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
199
Reaction score
283
Location
San Francisco, California USA
Vehicles
Porsche Taycan Turbo, Audi allroad, VW e-golf, BMW i3
Country flag
I definitely bought in for environmental reasons.

I sold my 911 because I felt like using gasoline for fun wasn't something I could justify to myself anymore (this isn't a preachy "you shouldn't do that" to others, it's just about me).

That said, the car is amazing. It's not a 911, but as a sports sedan it's off-the-charts incredible. I agree with the sentiment already expressed here that it's hard to go back to an internal combustion engine car once you've driven an EV. Instant torque is addicting.

I've kept one ICE vehicle in the household for long trips to places where charging infrastructure is iffy, and for hauling stuff that we can't do with our EVs. For daily errands, commute, and weekend fun I'm now ICE-free.
 

ThumbsUp

Active Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
30
Location
Indianapolis
Vehicles
2020 Taycan Turbo
Country flag
I made the decision a year or so ago to trade my DD for an EV, but I wanted a car I would enjoy as much as the 911, AMG, and V12 cars I’ve owned. The Taycan checked all the boxes and I’m thrilled with it. I have no desire for another ICE vehicle.
 

993_4S

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
8
Reaction score
16
Location
Bay Area
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo, 993 911 4S, Lamborghini Huracan Performante. 1965 Mustang GT
Country flag
I bought the Taycan because it's an awesome car. The acceleration is insane, it handles incredibly well for a heavy sedan, and I don't need to visit the gas station. 99% of my charging is at home. This is my 4th EV and I still have many gas cars.
 

svp6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
436
Reaction score
466
Location
MN
Vehicles
4S
Country flag
Once you drive a fast EV (Tesla, Taycan, iPACE) the exhilaration of the EV propulsion and convenience of home charging make you say never again to ICE cars. For me the eco-friendly part was nice, but not the main reason.
 

Dlurker20

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
119
Location
Minnesota
Vehicles
Taycan 4S, Acura MDX, Mini Cooper
Country flag
I’ve had hybrids. I’ve had higher MPG cars. I’ve wanted an EV. I’ve spent lots of time in Teslas. I almost bought 4 times but couldn’t ever turn the EV fantasy into reality given the subpar driving experience + poor materials, fit and finish...and then came the Taycan. Yes it has an environment improvement, but so do several others. But by far the greatest joy to drive and amazing quality...I don’t regret it for a second.
 

Tazer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
123
Reaction score
129
Location
London
Vehicles
Porsche Panamera Hybrid, Bentley Continental GT V8, Taycan 4s
Country flag
I bought it so that I don't have to pay for fuel in my daily driver :)
 

snstevens

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sam
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
56
Reaction score
106
Location
Kirkland, WA United States
Vehicles
Taycan 4S
Country flag
* Chevy Bolt, BMW i3 or Nissan Leaf. Any EV with a small battery pack is a whole lot better for the environment than a Tesla or Taycan. 4-5k pound curb weight to match ICE car ranges is still very inefficient transportation.

If you want to be green, ride your bike. The Taycan is an incredibly fast, luxurious, quiet, well-built car but we're not exactly saving the whales here lol
True on all points - no argument. I told my friends when I bought the Taycan that I could have bought 3-4 Nissan Leaf vehicles and probably saved money :)

Bottom line is that my decision is not about money, but about helping to bring much needed change to the automotive industry. I believe Tesla had it right when they innovated at the luxury end of the market first. This is where people have money to spend and alternatives like second (and third) cars they could drive on long trips. Creating a whole new infrastructure for EVs is going to take time and money and I think Porsche got so much right with the Taycan that I want to support that.

I think all of us on this forum will agree that the decision to buy the Taycan is not financially based, but is really a vote of confidence about the future of automobiles.

And as an enormous plus, the Taycan is kick-ass fun to drive, and who knows, maybe we save a few whales too :cool:
 
Last edited:

NC_Taycan

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lewis
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
241
Reaction score
167
Location
Wake Forest, NC
Vehicles
'12 Tesla Model S P85, '17 Cayenne S, '20 Taycan Turbo
Country flag
Disclosure - I love the Taycan Turbo and it replaced a Tesla model S.
Neither one was bought giving any consideration to impact on the environment. They were both bought because of performance. For me, this is about electric motors driving the wheels - I don't care where the energy comes from or how it's stored in the car. If you dig into the environmental impact of building a 100 kWh lithium-ion battery pack, your environmentally-friendly argument gets weak at best. If your electricity comes from fossil fuels, then you have no argument. So buy the car because it's a phenomenal driver's car. You can still do lots of things to help the environment.
 

charliemathilde

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
346
Reaction score
279
Location
CA
Vehicles
911
Country flag
Once you drive a fast EV (Tesla, Taycan, iPACE) the exhilaration of the EV propulsion and convenience of home charging make you say never again to ICE cars. For me the eco-friendly part was nice, but not the main reason.
that instant EV torque is a drug like Dave keeps saying. If you need a touring / commuter car, this is hard to beat on any measure
 

daveo4EV

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
1,658
Location
San jose
Vehicles
Tesla(s), 911 GT3, Boxster, Bolt, Taycan
Country flag
If your electricity comes from fossil fuels, then you have no argument.
this is rarely true and is not the generally accepted analysis from the past few years

tl;dr;

using existing/common commerical scale efficient fossil fuel power plants to generate/deliver 5,000 usable kWh to the grid uses less fossil fuel than what is required to refine 535 gallons of gasoline - using a 15,000 mile’s driven comparision between a 3 mile/kwh EV and a 28 mpg ICE.

basically consuming the fossil fuels at commercial scale and efficiencies for raw electricity generation trumps consumption of refined gasoline 20 gallons at a time (1 tank of gas) in 12-28% efficient ICE motors trying to turn fossil fuel explosions into kinetic motion rather than heat.

you can do the analysis (I’ve done it as have others) - even when the grid is 100% fossil fuel powered the EV generally comes out ahead - 15,000 miles driven requires 5,000 kWh from the grid (at 3 miles/kwh - the Taycan is closer to 3.2 mile/kWh) for an EV, and 15,000 miles driven in a gasoline (28 mpg) car requires 27 barrels of oil + 5 barrels of oil for the kWh of electricity required for each gallon of gasoline at the refinery…535 gallons of gasoline to drive 15,000 miles.

the above analysis also omits the additional costs/impact of distributing the gasoline post refinement - but that just makes it worse for the gasoline car and improves the EV story even more…

so to determine which is better/worse/equal - we simply need to compare how much fossil fuel is required to generate 5,000 kWh vs. 535 gallons of gas…and it turns out it's super efficient to generate 5,000 kWh - and uses way less fossil fuel than 535 gallons of gasoline. Yet both approaches lead to being able to drive 15,000 miles.

so now we have a budget so we can compare apples to apples
what can you do with a gross consumption of 32 barrels of oil? which is what is necessary to drive a gas car 15,000 miles.
each barrel of oil delivered directly to a 40% efficient power plant (normal commerical yield rates for existing oil fired fossil fuel powered plants) can generate 681 kWh delivered to a residential home - 27 barrels of oil delivered to a fossil fuel oil plant is is 18,387 kWh net to the grid + the 5 barrels of oil no longer used at the refinery yields another 3,405 kWh— for a total of 21,792 kwh from a 100% fossil fuel powered commercial power plant

at 3 miles/kWh power generation of 32 barrels of oil can drive an EV 65,376 miles
or
you can drive 15,000 miles with the same number of barrels of oil with a 28 mpg vehicle

or to do the analysis another way - the EV uses approximately 7.32 barrels of oil to have 5,000 kWh generated for the grid. So if a gas car were to drive 15,000 for only 7.32 barrels of oil (ignoring the cost of the electricity) you need to only consume 145.48 gallons of gasoline to drive 15,000 miles - that is an MPG rate of 103.1 mpg

so for an EV to have the same impact in terms of fossil fuel as a gasoline vehicle- you need to be driving 103 mpg ICE vehicles - and then we're the same - both cars would consume about the same amount of fossil fuels (barrels of oil) - but the gas car still couldn't be driven using solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, geo thermal or other various forms of kWh production.

103 mpg - and yes the EV is no better than a gasoline vehicle.
it’s interesting to me to note that if your EV is 4 miles/kWh or 5 miles/kWh it’s 15,000 miles driven consumption rate is equal to or less than the amount of electricity use to simply refine 535 gallons of gasoline - from a net impact to the grid the EV’s actually use LESS power from the grid if they are pushing 4+ miles/kWh - the Model 3 and Chevy Bolt are 4 mile/kWh vehicles so this is not even a theory - 15,000 miles with a Chevy Bolt is a 3,750 kWh consumption from the grid - which is just about the amount of power required to simply refine 535 gallons of gasoline.
scaled across the 10-15 year life of a vehicle and potentially millions of vechicles the savings of driving an EV are substaintial even keeping the grid fossil fuel powered…

but we also know the plan for the grid is _NOT_ fossil fuel based - so the EV already wins and will only get better. very very few places in north america are 100% fossil fuel based with some times of the day now covered 100% by renewables.

5,000 kWh delivered to a residential home is actually pretty low impact vs. 27 barrels of oil for the gasoline required to drive the same 15,000 miles

and as we all know the EV can be powered by non-fossile fuel sources and the ICE can never be powered that way.

basicallly even with fossil fuel powered electricity it’s more efficient to consume it in bulk at efficient large scale commercial facilities vs. refining and consuming it in 12-28% efficient individual motors that spend most of their time idle in traffic…bulk efficient commerical scale production is better than 100’s of millions of little motors of varying efficiencies - this analysis also precludes the comparison of natural gas power (62% thermally efficient for modern plants & here) and one of the cleanest fossil fuels to burn and fairly common for power-plants these days - comparing 62% efficient NG large scale power-plant powering EV’s vs. 28 mpg gasoline cars makes the comparison even more brutal for the gasoline vehicle (some would even say devastating) - even for coal power, the worse case scenario is still slightly better in favor of the EV vs 28% efficient gasoline motors - again due to the efficient commercial scale kwh production involved.

all of this analysis also assumes a static electrical grid with no improvement over time, which is also a false assumption - EV’s don’t care how the kWh’s are manufactures, so they are in essence the ultimate flex fuel vehicles and can run on solar or coal power and everything in between…where as a gasoline vehicle can only run on one thing - gasoline - and still needs electricity to refine the gasoline…

as far as the complexity of battery manufacture - this is typically represented as “embodied” energy analysis - how much power did it require to make the vehicle - well EV’s share a lot in common with gas cars (so the basic embodied energy cost are about the same for any new car), but we swap some components - but not all components - we drop the ICE engine and transmisison (lowering the cost), but we gain EV motor(s) and battery complexity (adding to the cost) - everying I’ve read says the break even point for the “additional” embodied energy costs of EV’s take 6-14 months to break even depending on your grid power mix - and that is getting better over time as battery manufacturing costs come down…we already know EV’s take less labor to assemble (30-40% fewer labor hours according GM/Ford and UAW which part of their GM strike a few years ago directly was due to them seeing the future with EV’s leading to less hours for their members).
its shift to EVs will also cost even more jobs. EVs are simply easier to build and require fewer parts without an engine. The UAW expects the move away from gas engines could cut 35,000 jobs over the next several years, according to a research study conducted by the union last year.
It is plausible and foreseeable as manufacturing efficiencies ramp up over time the embodied energy for an EV will actually be less than an ICE vehicle - but that is not the case today, but should occur naturally over time just like the costs for ICE"s have come down over the 100's of years of their development. As battery density increases EV's weight could continue to drop to the point that they are less than an ICE vehicle in comparison for similar capabilities, and then the EV efficiency will see further gains (5, 6, 7 mile/kWh) pushing the EV advantage even further vs the ICE vehicle. ICE that we are comparing EV's to are the results of 100's of years of relentless manufacturing evolution - I'm confident that after 15, 25, 30, 50 years of constant incremental improvement EV's will easily surpass ICE norms for weight, costs and efficiencies to the point that this comparison will be laughable - a bit like comparing steam power to hybrid-F1 vehicles. But even with the EV's current "disadvantages" the impact/cost differences are fractional - not debilitating and in line with advantages to migrate.

Only the most pessimistic (some would say biased) EV analysis claims the EV isn’t better over all at the end of it’s 10-20 year life and even the ones that do claim that typically omit some costly aspect of the fossil fuel chain analysis or ignore embodied energy costs of the ICE vehicle or over inflate the embodied energy costs for the eV (example using battery cost analysis from the Chevy EV1 - LOL).

this is not why I bought hte Taycan, but is why I’m excited by EV’s, and the Taycan is just the cherry on that sundae - and I do love me an ice cream sundae - as long as the refrigeration for it was solar powered :rock:

there is another whole analysis to be had about the lost revenues to the oil industry in that each EV sold represents a loss of about 25 barrels of oil consumption per year per vehicle sold for the life of that EV vehicle - multiple this times 100's of thousands of vehicles sold and the revenue forecast for demand and revenue per-barrel is not a rosy scenario for the fossil fuel industry - it is even perhaps such a bad analysis that they might be incentivized to suggest EV's aren't that good, but I'm sure they would never do that being people of science I'm sure they will follow the evidence where it leads rather than produce biased white papers that gloss over the problems of their industry…

if you accept my analysis of of a loss of 20'ish barrels of oil a year for each vehicle sold and multiply that by Porsche's estimated 20,000 Taycan's a year - assume they sell the taycan for 7 years (140,000 vehicles) total - and each Taycan is on the road for 7 years - the 14 year lost barrel of oil revenue is about $1,000,000,000 - if it's a billion $ lost over 14 years for 140,000 cars total - picture the impact of Tesla shipping 500,000 vehicles a year for the next 15 years, and more manufactures coming online also - pushing 10's if not 100's of thousands of vehicles into a market with declining demand for gasoline - I believe it's a real threat and could spur the industry to look to counter that trend.

Screen Shot 2020-10-26 at 5.49.23 PM.png

don't believe me:

https://www.wired.com/story/even-more-evidence-that-electric-cars-could-save-the-planet/
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichm...s-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why

ucsusa_30220343.png


A decade of improvement
The change from our first analysis of global warming emissions from EVs and gasoline vehicles in 2012 (using 2009 powerplant data) is even more impressive. In our initial assessment, less than half the US lived where an EV produced fewer emissions than a 50 mpg car, while now nearly all of the US falls in that category. The improvement has been driven partially by increasing EV efficiency, but the major contribution has been from the reduction in electricity generation from coal power plants. Electricity from coal has fallen from 45% to 28% in less than a decade. At the same time, solar and wind electricity has grown from less than 2% to 8% in 2018.
 
Last edited:

andyd

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
72
Reaction score
18
Location
UK
Vehicles
Taycan 4S, Mclaren 570GT, Cayenne
Country flag
1. UK new Tax rules make EV cars a no brainer for business owners.
2. Always had a Porsche and this is the best yet
3. Wanted a comfortable luxury car that was better than previous S Classes - its better alright.
4. I like the whole tech aspect of EV cars.
 

Advertisement





 



Advertisement
Top