We are not talking about range vs the weight of the fuel.

we are talking about how far you go for fuel consumed - and the math shows the EV goes further for the same amount of fuel consumed.

yes battery density for energy unit is less than gasoline - that is a measure of fuel density - _NOT_ a measure of consumption efficiency.

a 75 kWh battery in a Tesla model 3 can go 300 miles - more than enough for 99.9% of drivers typical usage - and enough to go for 5 hours @ 60 mph between charging stops.

we are comparing how much power is consumed to go a distance - and the same amount of fuel is better used in commercial scale power generation than in a 17% efficient gas motor. Over the life of an EV you will use 3 times less fuel than a gas car, 75 kWh at a time. The energy density of the battery is a capacity measurement not an efficiency measurement (efficiency per unit volume and weight yes). And yes EV’s batteries hold less energy capacity than a 20 gallon fuel tank, but then consume that energy at 90% efficiency @ 3-4 miles driven per kWH of battery capacity. So the super low density battery than only holds 75 kWh (about 2.5 gallons of gas worth of power) of power can drive 310 miles on a single charge having consumed less fuel to drive those 310 miles and therefore generate less emissions even when you factor in the power plant.

EV’s optimize distance per unit traveled - less fuel greater distance.

the comparison is _NOT_ about how far a gas car can go with 1100 lbs of fuel - 1 us gallon of gas weighs 6.183 pound - 1100 / 6.183 = 177.xx gallons

177 * 28 = 4956 miles driven

177 gallon however contains 33 kWh of power per gallon or 5841 kWh of raw power - burn the same 177 gallons of gas at a 48% power plant which will yield 2628 kWh delivered to the grid and the Tesla model 3 will drive 2628 kWh / .285 kWh/mile 9222 miles - charging it 75 kWh at a time.

Same 177 gallons of gasoline burned - gas car will drive 4956 miles, the EV will drive 9222 miles 75 kWh at a time

note: no one uses gasoline to run a power plant - too inefficient with losses due to refining, we wouldn’t use gasoline delivered to a power plant we’d use raw fuel oil which is more efficient, if you factor in the raw fuel oil needed to make 177 gallons of gas and the 6kWh of power used for each gallon the EV’s numbers get way better on total distance driven for fuel consumed...i compared gasoline to keep it apples to apples, but grid doesn’t run on gasoline, too inefficient, and a reminder if the grid isn’t using fossil fuels the EV runs on wind or solar etc....gas cars only drive with fossil fuels.

40 mpg is generous - 28 is more normal (panamera)

Internal Combustion Engines (ICE's) consume gasoline which is refine barrels of oil - For one barrel of oil you can get 20 gallons of gasoline. You will then burn that barrel of oil in a 28 mpg ICE car and you are able to drive 560 miles. We have burned one barrel of oil, it's emissions have been released into the atmosphere, and you drove 560 miles. At the average yearly driving of 13,500 miles, that is 24 barrels of oil consumed in one year, burnt, gone, emissions released.

Miles per gallon actually driven is 28 miles per gallon driven that is the EFFICIENCY of a Porsche Panamera - 24 barrels of oil consumed a year.

Now an EV doesn't consume barrels of oil directly. It has an 1100 lbs rechargeable battery. In that 1100 lbs battery it can hold 75 kWh of energy. You provide that energy via the electrical grid which is ubiquitous in developed nations. Therefore the efficiency of the EV is DIRECTLY tied to the efficiency of the power generation infrastructure. The math here is power grids in developed nations are typically at least 40% efficient, often times much greater. Combine this with the 90-95% efficient of batteries and EV motors and we can drive further for the same number of barrels of oil consumed.

when measuring the efficient of the electrical grid we will measure how many kWh's you are able to deliver to the grid for one-unit of fossil-fuel consumed. Electrical power plants don't consume gasoline, but they do consume barrels of oil. And a raw barrel of oil contains 1628.2 kWh of potential chemical energy when burnt. Deliver that same barrel of oil to a 52% efficient fuel-oil fired power plant and you will delivery 1628.2 kWh * 52% = 846.66 kWh delivered to the grid.

so:
we are still burning barrels of oil, so same impact on the environment, same source of fuel. But instead of converting the barrel of oil to gasoline, and then consuming it 20 gallons at a time @ 28 mpg - we are burning that same barrel of at a power plant to generate 846 kWh (I'm going to round to 850 kWh for the remainder of this post)

so now we have 850 kWh of power. The Tesla Model 3 can drive about 4.13 miles / kWh consumed (75 kWh battery EPA rated range of 310 miles). So how far can the Tesla Model 3 drive on 850 kWh of power from a single barrel of oil?

850 kWh * 4.13 = 3510.5 miles driven

so when measuring fuel efficiency miles-per-gallon the EV will go 3510.5 miles for one barrel of oil burnt vs. the 28 mpg car for 20 gallons of gasoline which is the yield from one barrel of oil.

so the EV can drive 3510 miles for one barrel of oil - so it requires 13,500 miles / 3510 miles/barrel = 3.8 barrels of oil delivered to a fuel-oil fired power plant.

so now we can compare barrels of oil consumed per year for 13,500 miles driven (MPG)

the weight of the battery has NOTHING to do with the efficiency as measured by units of energy consumed per-mile. We are measuring how many barrels of oil does it take to drive X miles - and one form of transportation is the clear winner when attempting to optimize CONSUMPTION of fuel.

Same fuel consumption - barrels of oil - one car can go 13,500 miles for 4 barrels of oil, and the other car requires 24 barrels of oil to drive the exact same distance in a year.

Now there are kickers for the EV that make it even better:

to put it simply we are NOT comparing the energy density of the fuel tank (20 gallons of gasoline for 130 lbs of fossil fuel in the car) vs. 1100 lbs of battery for approximately 2.5 gallons of fossil fuel.

we are comparing for a given amount of fuel (regardless of weight) how much do you consume to drive a distance of X?

the push for EV's is NOT a push for energy density, it's push for emissions control, and if you consume less fuel (which EV do hands down) you lower your emission per-mile even when your power grid is fossil fuel based, but you can move your power grid to NOT be fossil-fuel based and then the EV's continue to drive miles, but have even less emissions/mile.

comparing the energy density of batteries to gasoline when what we are measuring is distance per unit of "fuel" consumed misses the point of what is being optimized.

I give up Dave04porsche, I gave it my best but there is simply no way to debate against your refusal to admit that the energy density of gasoline is FAR greater than that of a lithium ion battery. It’s best display of that is by discussing the weight and size of the battery because as I demonstrated very clearly I thought , that’s where it’s greatest weakness lies.

I attempted to break it down into its simplest terms with a very rudimentary calculation to display the glaring deficiency but the very word “simple” proves problematic for your immediate deflection into efficiency calculations loaded with skewed math , logic , wishful thinking and some kind of personal aspiration of becoming an EV marketing propaganda leader.


I‘m very happy that you are so passionate about your Tesla but perhaps you can reserve your passion and propaganda for threads where people want to discuss how amazing they are and continue building hype and congratulating themselves.

Oh by the way Tesla is in financial trouble and hovering on the brink of collapse but you and your EV converts are so enthralled by the music that your not noticing the ship may be sinking ... I can’t say I blame you though as Tesla from day one has been a major hype machine who’s success has been largely dependent on its abilties to capture their buyers imagination and as we can see here many Tesla buyers sure do have an imagination.

The other purchasers who are less imaginative, however , have been plagued by real world range anxiety issues particularly in temperature extremes and stopped traffic situations during longer
trips , reliability problems and have ultimately leaned back on their other ICE car and plan to turn in their Tesla with no immediate plans for a replacement.

The range issues are real because no matter how you slice it the batteries are sub par and the sparse charging network remains the only lifeline an EV possesses for survival. In the northeast ( not sunny California where life is grand and everything is better ) this is a real problem.

This is a thread where I was hoping to build upon the blatantly truthful statements of a Porsche employee who like me and many others DO NOT like EV’s , especially where sports cars are concerned and wish to have a debate that doesn’t include the same handful of EV owners landing in on a crusade to convince everyone else otherwise.

I’m giving up because I’m not interested in arguing with a brick wall.

I really don’t care to prove you wrong either because I believe that’s an impossible feat. Also
likely the case in your personal life as well.

The only thing you’ve succeeded in here is sucking the life out of this thread where no one will comment further in opposition to you , including myself.

Due to the fact that you thrive
on touting your intelligence and superiority in this matter. I’ll leave you with one final glimpse into your infuriating ability to skew data : NO ONE at any point said anything about the Panamera. I was discussing a theoretical model of an efficient car that yields 40 mpg because most EV’s are geared towards efficiency over performance.

In order to lower the staggering number calulated by using 40 mpg you fliped to discussing the Panamera and it’s 28 mpg because you felt that number better suited whatever ridiculous point you were attempting to make.