[throwaway4PP]

Interesting. I cynically view this (brushed motors with reduced lifetime as compared to brushless, sold as a benefit b/c free of rare earth) as just another self-serving decision automakers can make in the push to reduce the usable lifetime of EVs.

The longevity of ICE/hybrid vehicles has long been a bugbear for auto manufacturers. One of the convenient things for them in the push for EVs is that EVs will inherently have less utility at 10 - 15 years than ICE vehicles.

With manufacturers' standard EV warranty including 70% bat capacity at 10 years or XYZ miles, it's almost like an ICE manufacturer saying your gas tank will get 30% smaller after a decade. Except that an aging battery also has reduced current draw and thermal allowances, so there is also less instantaneous power available as the battery pack ages.

This is an engineering reality of battery EVs, to keep them safe as their packs age. The power limit could be viewed as consistent with older ICE's not performing at nameplate HP, which none of them will without significant maintenance.

But this is why I'm cynical about automakers and EVs: EVs lower their cost burden in the medium to long term with simplified production, and "enhanced" planned obsolence via wear components that are much more expensive and can significantly limit the utility of the vehicle in the 10 - 20 year time horizon, as compared to ICEs and maybe hybrids.

[iSnow]

That begs the question why cars up until roughly the early 90's had an expected life time of 10-15y and have increased life expectancy now. Surely, it can't be hard to engineer parts of the engine or the chassis in a way that it breaks/corrodes after 10y. In fact, before zinc was used to protect the metal, that was one of the limiting factors.

I think the answer is competition, and I don't see why there should be less competition for BEVs which are simpler to construct than ICE cars.

Additionally, some managers claim that real-world battery life is much longer than expected, see https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/08/01/electric...

[the_pwner224]

This doesn't pass the smell test.

They can already do that - they arguably are already doing that (*) - by making combustion engines which aren't reliable in the long term. And there are so many other things that you can design to be unreliable in the long term, especially in modern cars which have lots of features.

They're warrantied at 70% for 10 years because that's what the law requires. It doesn't mean you're going to lose 30% over 10 years. We could also see manufacturers put a better warranty on their vehicles as a selling point.

I haven't done much research into this, but I believe the existing EVs from various manufacturers have had very good battery degradation characteristics over time and over mileage. Not anything remotely like 70% over 10 years. If you look at technical documents and presentations that manufacturers create for industry trade shows, training their technicians, and in press releases for new models, they seem to genuinely care about battery degradation and mention all the things they're doing to ensure a long battery life. Obviously the situation might change in the future and companies may decide to become greedy, but for now this doesn't appear to be an issue. And as battery technology (& capacity) advances over time, this is going to be less of a problem in the future.

(*) Edit: That was poorly worded. I'm not saying it's common practice to intentionally design things to break, but that manufacturers who get greedy and cut costs are naturally going to end up making drivetrains that don't last 10+ years. Nissan's CVT debacle is a perfect example. The companies who would skimp on spending $$$ for battery management are already doing the same things right now with their ICE products. But what we've seen as an industry trend is that manufacturers for the most part don't intentionally sabotage their products; in fact cars have been slowly but steadily getting more reliable over time. Going from ICEs to EVs doesn't change this situation at all.

Another example is anti-corrosion coatings on the frame and underbody. They could easily save $$$ here with no noticeable effect to the customer until 10 years down the line. But across the industry, we see that luxury brands choose to spend extra $ on advanced coatings (when they could use the cheaper value coatings which the economy brands use), and the economy brands have also been upgrading to the newer coatings as cost comes down (rather than sticking with the older cheaper coatings). Just like how engines have become more reliable over time, the frames of modern cars last much longer than older cars. The industry in general is not sabotaging their products, they are genuinely trying to make good quality products.

[sandworm101]

>> making combustion engines which aren't reliable in the long term.

Who? Which engines are not reliable over 5/7/10+ years? Fiat? Some custom thing built in a German garage? All the big manufacturers are churning out amazingly reliable IC engines. Almost anything from Honda/Toyota/BMW/Merc will last decades. Maybe some sensor needs replacing or an electrical circuit has an issue, but with normal maintenance modern IC engines go forever, far longer than most new car buyer ever keeps the vehicle. The air conditioning, cruise control, radio, suspension, transmission and seat cushions will all be dead long before the engine gives up the ghost.

What breaks are things like sensors and control systems, little inexpensive parts that are generally worthless compared to the effort needed to diagnose and replace them. And that isn't going away with EVs. They have basically the same number of drivetrain sensors and systems as any IC car. Taking the car into the mechanic because of an engine light will still be a thing.

[nuancebydefault]

Maybe you will call the following anecdotal but my car has 280000 km and is completely worn out. Lots of expensive parts already have been replaced, including engine wiring. It's not a cheap Fiat but a more expensive Mazda. No, cars in general (the medium price segment, family cars) are not made to last much more than 10 years. One good reason for that fact is that the used technology becomes obsolete after that time. Another reason is fashion, people don't want to be related to an old car. Another one: they need to be as light as possible, hence sturdy enough but not military grade. Another, labour is expensive, so preferrably maintainance every 20k km or once a year. Cars have lots of pieces that don't need maintenance, e.g. ball bearings, but instead need replacement every x years. Same with the engine, nobody wants to bother with an expensive revise of that part. Electronics, the PCB boards/components are not produced anymore beyond 10 years. The list goes on. ICE or electric, the same arguments apply. Thinking of it, the same life expectancy holds for many appliances.

[greenthrow]

This is nonsense. BMW has said the brushes in the motors should last roughly 15 years and the motors have been engineered to make replacing the brushes a fairly simple service.