Just another daydream: electric 911

[Sidicks]

Instant torque was a major priority for me.

In the ‘90s I had a TVR Griffith and my boss kept trying to persuade me to change it to something with better crash safety.
The 993 version of the 911 had just come out and I liked the look of it so had a test drive. Being 300+kg heavier than the TVR and a bit less power it felt disappointingly slow.

When I told Porsche GB that they were surprised and promised me a go in the Turbo when it arrived (I was technical director of a Formula 1 team at the time so they were very keen for me to buy a Porsche).
Anyway I got the demonstrator for a weekend, unfortunately the British GP weekend so I was working but I drove it to Silverstone for each day anyway, it was clear roads at 6am and midnight when I was mostly travelling and the car was super fast on open roads, but the lag meant that in traffic the throttle response meant it was inadequate for overtaking.
In traffic a car with instant throttle response will safely overtake in places a turbo IC engined car can’t IME.

I think that turbo engines have moved on a lot since the 993 and with PDK gearboxes, then lag need not be an important issue!

Thats not to say I don’t understand the benefits of the instant torque available from EVs.

 

[daveo4EV]

c

Most Porsches have a 2-year service requirement (although I did used to have an oil change in between the servicing, for my GT3), which meant a visit to the dealer and the opportunity to try out other cars. Unless you live a very long way from the dealership, that doesn’t seem that onerous.

In any case, the servicing timetable for the Taycan is also 2 years!!!

And surely the (known) decreasing efficiency of batteries over time and the (unknown) long-term reliability of electric motors masks the comparison somewhat?

current service interval for my Wife's 911 is 1 year or 10,000 miles - same for cayenne - service intervals for Porsche's are annual and over $500, someitme much much more.

 

[Sidicks]

current service interval for my Wife's 911 is 1 year or 10,000 miles - same for cayenne - service intervals for Porsche's are annual and over $500, someitme much much more.

Not in the UK or Europe.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

note a 120 lbs (current ICE fuel tank full) battery providing Taycan with 660 kWh of power would be well over 2000 miles range and lower Taycan's curb weight from ~5,000 lbs to ~3,500 lbs…vehicle packaging opportunities would be interesting as I'm sure the battery would be much smaller in this case - so a vehicle of this nature would be potentially "awesome" sauce…4 AWD door sedan with 800-1000 HP @ 911 sports car curb weight…

Sifting through 3 walls of text, you indicated that a 660kWh battery weighing in at 120lbs/54kg would be ideal. I stood up, applauded, put my name and deposit on the list, and then sat back down to do the (trivial) math.

660kWh/55kg = 12kWh/kg ideal gravimetric energy density
Present day upper value of specific energy density is 350Wh/kg.
12000Wh/kg / 350Wh/kg = 34x improvement (also known as 3400%).
If you go with 450Wh/kg, that's still only 27x away.

I brought cow dung into the picture because a) scatological joke and b) it was both surprisingly high at 4.5kWh/kg and seems attainable - that'd be a 10x improvement, and so less than your proposed ideal.

Setting numbers aside, my point wasn't that somehow EV mobility is doomed to be a niche - far from it; in fact, I'm convinced that the vast majority of suburban US population could and should move wholly to EVs right fucking now - they have the means to charge, they don't all need to tow for 300 miles/day, and there is an EV for most every pocket etc. My point, though, was that ICEs will become a forever niche - specifically in the sparsely populated areas. Back to the point where this went off the rails, it follows that synthetic fuels are not a desperate, futile attempt to prolong a past era, but rather a promising, eco-conscious way to solve mobility where an electrical infrastructure doesn't make sense, whether it's crossing Alaska, Yellowstone or just the North Cascades.

 

[daveo4EV]

h

Sifting through 3 walls of text, you indicated that a 660kWh battery weighing in at 120lbs/54kg would be ideal. I stood up, applauded, put my name and deposit on the list, and then sat back down to do the (trivial) math.

660kWh/55kg = 12kWh/kg ideal gravimetric energy density
Present day upper value of specific energy density is 350Wh/kg.
12000Wh/kg / 350Wh/kg = 34x improvement (also known as 3400%).
If you go with 450Wh/kg, that's still only 27x away.

I brought cow dung into the picture because a) scatological joke and b) it was both surprisingly high at 4.5kWh/kg and seems attainable - that'd be a 10x improvement, and so less than your proposed ideal.

Setting numbers aside, my point wasn't that somehow EV mobility is doomed to be a niche - far from it; in fact, I'm convinced that the vast majority of suburban US population could and should move wholly to EVs right fucking now - they have the means to charge, they don't all need to tow for 300 miles/day, and there is an EV for most every pocket etc. My point, though, was that ICEs will become a forever niche - specifically in the sparsely populated areas. Back to the point where this went off the rails, it follows that synthetic fuels are not a desperate, futile attempt to prolong a past era, but rather a promising, eco-conscious way to solve mobility where an electrical infrastructure doesn't make sense, whether it's crossing Alaska, Yellowstone or just the North Cascades.

having driven to Alaska this past spring (2022) I noted the continous power lines along side the roads that I was taking - and yet the very very sparce fueling stations that still require visits by fuel trucks to keep the supplied - I would argue - it's not easier to provide gasoline in all cases - in my case driving from Prince George to Jueanu Alaska - the electrical grid was ubiquitiouis and gas stations were either close, in disrepair ,or poorly serviced - I'm pretty sure if we wanted to we could make EV's work for driving across alaska - at least anywhere we're willing to install and maintain roads - true off roading where there is no infrastructure will remain the purview of ICE vehicles…but electricity was easily available the entire route from Seattle to Anchorage - install some charging stations and you're done - no new infrastructure required - anywhere that can pump fuel has electricity to charge an EV.

 

[daveo4EV]

Instant torque and low service intervals are not priorities for most 911 enthusiasts!

only because they have never had one or the other…both is nirvana. an EV is the BEST NA motor ever…no lag linear throttle response regardless of speed currently traveling at…

 

[Sidicks]

only because they have never had one or the other…both is nirvana. an EV is the BEST NA motor ever…no lag linear throttle response regardless of speed currently traveling at…

As discussed, in most parts of the world, servicing schedules are no different between Porsche’s ICE cars and their EVs. And I still don’t think car enthusiasts (should) care that much about one service per year or certainly have this as a priority compared all the other capabilities that a Porsche can offer.

As far as the second point is concerned, there’s a reason why (many) true enthusiasts want the high reviving 911 GT3 over the high torque 911 Turbo S….

And a manual gearbox (or at least fast PDK with manual control) rather than a slush box.

 

[daveo4EV]

As discussed, in most parts of the world, servicing schedules are no different between Porsche’s ICE cars and their EVs. And I still don’t think car enthusiasts (should) care that much about one service per year or certainly have this as a priority compared all the other capabilities that a Porsche can offer.

As far as the second point is concerned, there’s a reason why (many) true enthusiasts want the high reviving 911 GT3 over the high torque 911 Turbo S….

even if the schedules are the same the costs are _NOT_ there isn't as much to service on an EV - the Cayenne's 30k service can run $2000 - there isn't $2000 of anything that requires routine servicing on any EV - also Porsche's EV services are "inspections" with no real content - my 2 year 'service' was: air filter, alignment of hte matrix headlights (which I declined as an $800). Where as with an ICE< you have filters, oil, fluids, spark plugs, O2 sensors, etc…

Porsche's EV service schedule is performative profit scheduling, but has no real mechanical requirements - vs. ICE schedules which have actual physical work

EV's have no routine service parts that need to be replaced - other than tires & wipers and cabin air filters.

 

[Sidicks]

even if the schedules are the same the costs are _NOT_ there isn't as much to service on an EV - the Cayenne's 30k service can run $2000 - there isn't $2000 of anything that requires routine servicing on any EV - also Porsche's EV services are "inspections" with no real content - my 2 year 'service' was: air filter, alignment of hte matrix headlights (which I declined as an $800). Where as with an ICE< you have filters, oil, fluids, spark plugs, O2 sensors, etc…

Porsche's EV service schedule is performative profit scheduling, but has no real mechanical requirements - vs. ICE schedules which have actual physical work

EV's have no routine service parts that need to be replaced - other than tires & wipers and cabin air filters.

The goalposts appear to being moved - i thought previously that your point was about the inconvenience of having to take the car once every year or once every two years for a service, now it’s about costs?

Regardless, if one of your main concerns for your car is costs, then you probably wouldnt buy a Porsche in the first place!

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

having driven to Alaska this past spring (2022) I noted the continous power lines along side the roads that I was taking - and yet the very very sparce fueling stations that still require visits by fuel trucks to keep the supplied - I would argue - it's not easier to provide gasoline in all cases - in my case driving from Prince George to Jueanu Alaska - the electrical grid was ubiquitiouis and gas stations were either close, in disrepair ,or poorly serviced - I'm pretty sure if we wanted to we could make EV's work for driving across alaska - at least anywhere we're willing to install and maintain roads - true off roading where there is no infrastructure will remain the purview of ICE vehicles…but electricity was easily available the entire route from Seattle to Anchorage - install some charging stations and you're done - no new infrastructure required - anywhere that can pump fuel has electricity to charge an EV.

I don’t think the problem plaguing EV infrastructure today is the absence of electricity.
To begin with, a 350kW charger with 2 ports is anywhere between 250k and 400k$. A typical charging session nets $30. Let’s make it simple and say it’s $1M to set up a 4-charger station and you can extract $100 per charge. At 50% profit you’re looking at 20k charging sessions to break even. Because there’s a time component to this, at 30min/charge that means 416 charge-days for the station, or 52 charge-days per port. That’s running continuously, so imagine how many years it’d take to get that with even 10x today’s traffic. Also, that’s for one station, so imagine multiplying that for every 50-100 miles.

But as I said, that’s not even the main problem. Gas pumps are as reliable as an old hammer - the unkempt appearance of a station means nothing, you’re just there to pump gas and as long as you can pay, that.just.works. Charging stations are computers, and they’re nowhere near as reliable. Further, they -depend- on internet connectivity and the availability of backend services, and that introduces even more point of failure/reduced availability and reliability. (In fact, a C&D article says 80-85% of EV charging station failures are software-related.) So not only it’s far more prone to failure, but you need specialists to fix them. Maybe that’ll become common knowledge, but the trend seems to go in the opposite direction- remote areas don’t seem to be able to retain people with skills.

tl;dr: electrification requires a nation-state-level investment (that is, to assume it’ll be a sunk cost) and requires more advances in robustness, serviceability and training. There will be areas where the population density simply makes this investment a poor one. Oregon: 44ppl/sq mile, UT: 40, ID: 23; the latter is interesting, as a major transportation couloir.)