For those of us unclear why collecting air from passing cars to measure particulates is obviously flawed, could you elaborate?

EVs unfortunately do increase tire particulate, as well. Fairly significantly. It's not obvious to me that the decrease in brake dust isn't made up by the increase in tire dust.

The removal of the tailpipe emissions is really where EVs shine from a pollution standpoint. If you turn on your car in your garage, you don't die anymore.

And to add info, an F-150 will change brake pads 3-7 times over 200k miles, while a Model Y will still be on the original set with nearly no sign of wear.

If that were true of tires, you would expect an EV’s tires to get substantially less range before wearing out…which I don’t believe is the case.

Additional weight (which is minor; of best-selling vehicles, F-150 curb weight is 4000-5600 lbs, Tesla Model Y is 4400-4600 lbs) does not meaningfully increase brake wear because the brakes don't get used.

That sounds like a stretch tbh

You guessed wrong.

An electric car can use its engines to bring a vehicle to a complete stop. It can also use the motor to hold the car in place, even on a fairly steep incline. You can't do either with a standard transmission ICE vehicle.

There are people with electric cars that have their brakes rust out because they're never used. A standard piece of advice to EV owners is "make sure to use your brakes at least once a month".

the engine cannot brake to a complete stop, so break pads are always in use. At low RPMs, the engine is going to stall (manual) or switch to neutral (automatic).

In Canada, diesel fuel is priced around mid-grade gasoline (89). So it's slightly more expensive than regular, but slightly cheaper than premium (91/93).

Based on this, I've always thought of diesel as "more expensive", like you better get 15% more power/miles out of it if it's going to cost more! However, I suspect that most people purchasing diesel vehicles have as their other choice a car that would slurp premium, so for those buyers perhaps diesel is still a discount, even in Canada.

Can you source that? Diesel is only 13% more energy dense than gasoline [1] so the difference between the two fuels isn't huge.

I suspect that modern (last five years) turbocharged gasoline engines are probably approaching diesel thermal efficiency, but I don't think that it's correct to say that they generally surpass it. The gasoline Ford EcoBoost is 33% thermally efficient while a BMW N47 turbo-diesel is 42% thermally efficient, as an example [2].

[1] https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/properties [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumptio...

Fuel is sold by volume, which is why volumetric fuel efficiency is desirable to the consumer

Yes, but measuring miles per volume of fuel and setting increasing targets was a big focus of reducing petroleum dependency since the 70s.

The focus has more recently shifted to reducing overall emissions of CO2 and other harmful gases and particulates, which makes diesel much less appealing.

I don't think any car buyer has ever looked at Calories per litre of fuel as a relevant metric for purchasing.

People that buy cars almost exclusively care about cost of fuel to move between A and B.

The scandals don't matter. The number of people in the USA who buy diesel passenger cars rounds off to "nobody." There's just no point in even bothering. Supposing you could make an ultra-low emission diesel (without cheating), you'd still sell almost none.

Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago?

In the US, Federal lawmakers would be voted out of office (even now after the science of climate change has settled) if they imposed taxes on fuels anywhere near as high as European lawmakers do.

My point was that misinformation makes it impossible or nearly impossible to evaluate "is this environmental or not".

Best effort is not enough to guarantee a good outcome- for example, this car is diesel and has lower emissions, therefore I will buy it and I will be reducing my own emissions turns out to not be true all the time.

Just like congestion pricing might or might not actually affect pollution in the way that it's claimed. The obvious point being that the city loves the new revenue, no matter what the level of impact it actually has.

I'm actually in favor of congestion pricing in principle (whether or not pm2.5 is reduced or not). I'm just sad that often times it's impossible to figure out what's true.

For 99.9% of issues, we rely on trust to make up our minds. We assume people are mostly not lying. If a group of people are found to lie, then yes, maybe “look for the truth behind the actual claims” is worth it, but more likely shooting them out of the discourse and into the metaphorical sun is the right response. If you walk around lying, you don’t get to complain that people aren’t doing research on your claims.

Yes, but that 24% increase in Europe is partly due to increase in vehicle size. Vehicle size is increasing over time in Europe, and the average EV is newer.

Also, cars designed as pure EV's are a lot lighter than EV's built on an ICE chassis.

A Telsa 3 is about 2% heavier than a BMW 3 whereas a Ford Lightning is 20% heavier than the comparable F-150.

> As things move to EV I don't know why the proportion of car body types (whatever you call this) wouldn't stay the same.

It's the same problem as giant phones. They make them this way in order to fit a bigger battery in.

ehhh, they certainly can and do... but I think there's a case to be made that this can be lower when managed appropriately

> But the tires are individually controlled - less slippage

Not relevant for normal driving. The tires aren’t spinning appreciably due to acceleration except in brief moments with aggressive driving.

EVs can actually have higher acceleration related tire wear because they weigh more and have more instant torque on demand.

A lot of consumer EVs have filtered throttle pedal inputs to reduce the torque spikes though.

With extea weight and tire size, evs will have more slippage. It isnt about the entire tire slipping against the ground. It is about tread patterns slipping as the tire rolls at any speed, especially in corners where car tires cannot ever avoid slipping.

While this is generally true, tire wear is known to be generally faster on EVs due to their weight and instantaneous torque when accelerating.

Which, as an EV owner, feels like an "oh no, my steak is too buttery" kind of problem to have.

I say this as someone who owns an electric scooter and whose next car will be an EV—the sales pitch for EVs right now is basically pay more (especially now that the tax credit is gone) to have a worse time and maybe eventually claw some of it back over the lifetime of the car in fuel savings. The environmental impact is the pro in the pro con list. So if that doesn't pan out, or doesn't pan out enough it's going to be a tough sell.

Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.

Alternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business.

Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf...

And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...

They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which is why car companies push them. In their current ICE form they also benefit from massive government subsidies of the Oil companies. If you took those away it is unlikely that the convenience would be worth the additional cost.

Wagons can do all of that too

EVs are heavier than equivalent-sized ICE vehicles, but they do enjoy regenerative braking. The answer is to make smaller-sized cars but the auto industry has been pushing the farmer cosplay for decades because the profit margins are a lot higher on a $75k truck or SUV than $30k sedan.

Chevy Suburban: ~ 5,700–6,100lbs

Model 3: ~ 3,860–3,900+ lbs

Suburban is about 1.5–1.6× heavier than a Tesla Model 3.

"A Tesla Model 3 has a greater curb weight than a Chevy Suburban" -- what? Source?

Suburban - 6,051 lbs Model 3 - 3,891 lbs

https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/suburban/2025/features-spe... https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2025/features-specs/

Tires yes, brakes no. Friction brakes are barely used on EVs outside of specific scenarios. Mine will engage in three situations:

    1. The brake pedal is pressed hard
    2. The battery is 100% charged and the energy from braking can not be used
    3. I am backing up

Tire wear - yet, but in theory they should emit less brake dust thanks to regenerative breaking.

> A Tesla Model 3 has a greater curb weight than a Chevy Suburban

Google AI tells me that Tesla model 3 (heaviest modification - AWD) is 1851 kg and Chevy Suburban 4WD is 2640 kg. Is it wrong?

Tire wear is probably a thing - although I suspect the per-wheel control allows them to better respond to slips and sudden acceleration. I've noticed test driving a Tesla that it accelerates rapidly much more smoothly with no tire slippage than a combustion car.

Brake wear is likely nulled out by regenerative braking. And you're probably not driving highway speeds through Manhattan, either.

This is wrong. Exact weights vary with trim levels, but Model are around 4000 lbs. and Suburbans are around 6000 lbs.

Tire, yes. But not brakes. With an EV most of the kinetic energy is converted back to electricity thanks to regenerative braking instead of being turned into heat through friction.

Overall the EV emit fewer airborne particles even without counting the exhaust.

Aren't Tesla Model Y SUVs though?

If we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice?

>Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads..

On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>

There's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction.

For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.

EU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022):

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv...

> Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.

Because a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.

Probably true, but all of those are significantly more involved installations or modifications.

To be clear, I'm all in favor of reworking neighborhood roads to be more friendly to pedestrians, but I think things like signs have a significantly better chance of actually being implemented in most circumstances.

Of course, drivers respond to speed bumps the same way they respond to other poor road surfaces: 3-ton SUVs.

Yeah, my neighbor at my last place had a diesel pickup and I could both hear and smell that it was diesel whenever he started it up.

Pretty much any new car sold in the US, Canada, Mexico, and most of Europe. "Western" typically refers to "countries rich/developed enough to [in this case] add emissions regulations". It's a luxury that many countries haven't gotten to yet, but is widespread in North America and Europe.

The good news is that I believe Ho Chi Minh City is about to start, so hopefully they'll have much cleaner air in a couple years.

They probably mean two stroke motorcycles.

This is a widely debunked bad faith NIMBY talking point. A train, even at high frequencies, is less noise pollution than a highway or major road.