Submitted 3 weeks ago by kalkulat@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Recycling when EV’s get down to 80%-of-range level can be tricky. But there’s no necessity if there are many immediate uses for batteries that are ‘down’ to 240 instead of 300.
What’s so bad about 80% of the original capacity? Wouldn’t there be a lot of use cases for a car with 80% of the range?
I’m glad to see any second use for these batteries before recycling. Gotta combat the narrative that “an EV battery is trash after 5 years!”
80% is often considered standard for battery warranty. If a Mac goes under 80% in fewer than 1000 cycles, the service toolkit considers it a failure - back when I had access to pirated Apple Service Toolkit anyway. The old version for pre 2015 laptops.
I imagine it’s similar with cars. They can’t promise you retain 100% health for 8 years so they probably have some set percentage. Maybe it’s also 80%?
So it’s more of a milestone to catch early battery degradation rather than a cutoff point below which the battery is labeled useless?
IllNess@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
From the article:
I wanted to see what their partnership was like so I checked on Wikipedia:
Source: Wikipedia: Mazda
Wow. I didn’t really expect Mazda to be involved with 6 other car manufacturers.
jqubed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I remember in the ’90s/’00s there were a few Mazda and Ford vehicles that were basically the same, most obviously to me the Ford Ranger and Mazda B-series pickup truck.
grue@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
IIRC, the Mazda3 was based on the same platform as the European version of the Ford Focus
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
at that time, Ford owned 1/3 of Mazda. They divested in 2015.
SupraMario@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Manufacturers work with each other a LOT. A lot of the japanese makers also own stakes in each others companies or have partnerships setup. It’s the exact opposite with USDM stuff, they just don’t share or collaborate on anything big it seems.
lemming741@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ford and GMC share several transmission designs
en.wikipedia.org/…/GM–Ford_6-speed_automatic_tran…
en.wikipedia.org/…/Ford–GM_10-speed_automatic_tra…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_8F_transmission
And sometimes they share by virtue of having the same suppliers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_6HP_transmission#Applica…
www.koreaherald.com/article/10383874
Brembo provides brake systems for everyone. Recaro makes seats for everyone. Only premium models get the branding, but it’s pretty common for Brembo to make the base, performance,and halo trim brakes on a car.
Hell, look at the fitment of these brake pads- the calipers are very similar too because they were all made by PBR
www.amazon.com/…/B01LXRWLUA
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Fun fact, previous Mazda 2 was sold as a Yaris in the US, then they swapped and the new Yaris is sold as a Mazda 2 in some european countries
philpo@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Wasn’t there some industry rumours that the official merger plan with Honda way meant to go much further and included Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and Mitsubishi as wished by the Japanese government in an effort to create a player large enough to withstand pressure from China, Korea and Europe. It failed obviously,though.
simulacra_procession@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
As a parts guy, it’s always fun trying to explain why the part I ordered OEM from the warehouse came in a Nissan or Toyota bag instead of GM for ex. A lot of it is that they use the same lists of manufacturers and suppliers for their parts and so it’s often just cheaper to use an existing design for a seemingly insignificant part that is already in production. Think little bushings and things like relays. Ofc things go bad and when they do it’s not clear to the consumer why they’re being sold “this cheap Chinese crap” instead of their vaunted ‘OEM’ garbage. They just don’t get it.