Read Part 1 – ICE vs EV utes – click here
GLOBAL mining company transport mainstay, the Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Series, is a hard vehicle to overlook when the environment in which it operates turns nasty.
The 70 Series has been sold on the grounds of durability, reliability and ease of repair and, despite a tough work life, even on retained value.
So how does it compare with a vehicle new to the resources industry and one not often considered by miners as a Toyota replacement? Especially when it’s an electric vehicle?
In commercial applications where performance and purchase price compete for buyer attention, the longstanding record of the Land Cruiser should win out.
An effective method of comparison for vehicles put to commercial use, particularly for fleets, is calculating total cost of ownership (TCO).
Queensland-based vehicle engineering business AUSEV uses TCO calculated by an Australian firm to show clients the practicalities and potential cost savings of EVs in different scenarios.
AUSEV previously outlined to GoAutoNews Premium that in different situations, internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles will have a lower TCO but that in many cases, an EV is less expensive and has less demands on operators in terms of time to organise scheduled servicing and in driver comfort and safety.
Maintenance costs of an EV are “significantly lower” than an ICE equivalent, said AUSEV executive Tom Shipsides.
The reasons, he said, included fewer moving parts in an EV, longer service intervals and little need to replace components such as brake parts because of regenerative braking and ‘one-pedal’ driving modes.
AUSEV’s calculations are based on factors such as maintenance costs factored at $200 an hour and downtime hours required for ICE service and maintenance compared with the simpler inspections needed by an EV.
This favours EVs with their low service needs and as many industries – including mining – have reduced service intervals, costs can quickly increase for ICEs.
There are pros and cons with both ICEs and EVs. The primary difference is the high price of an EV, especially one for work purposes.
AUSEV previously compared a Ford F150 Lightning Pro (EV) with a Ford F-150 XLT (ICE).
Now it has compared the Lightning EV with a Toyota Land Cruiser LC79 Workmate 2.8-litre dual-cab cab-chassis.
The Lightning has two electric motors driving all four wheels with a combined output of 337kW/1050Nm.
The LC79 has a 2.8-litre four-cylinder turbo-diesel engine rated at 150kW/450-500Nm.
The AUSEV comparison was based on each vehicle being owned for four years and travelling a total of 200,000km.
Mr Shipsides said the calculations are flexible enough so parameters can be changed to suit individual circumstances, but using a set of data common to the industry, the TCO of a Ford EV is calculated at about 20 per cent less than the LC79.
Taking into account the purchase price, operating costs, maintenance, CO2 emissions and disposal, the EV’s TCO was $141,598 against the LC79 ICE at $198,621 (a difference of $57,022). Purchase prices are ex-GST.
AUSEV can also provide up to an $8000 fleet discount on the EV which makes it more attractive, bringing the purchase price down to $161,028 (ex GST and ORC).
Mr Shipsides said the potential for a carbon tax and a road-user charge (for EVs) should also be considered by owners when making comparisons between an EV and an ICE.
Neither road-user charges nor a penalty for carbon are as yet legislated in Australia.
However, companies impacted by the ‘safeguard mechanism’ monitored by the Clean Energy Regulator are required to buy credits on The Australian Carbon Market (to meet their base line targets).
The regulator has set in legislation a price cap of $75 per tonne for scope 1 emissions and it is this charge that can affect TCO.
In total, the LC79 has Scope 1 emissions of a hefty 101.5 tonnes compared with nil for the EV.
The data also shows the cost of electricity for the EV averages 20c/kWh and the EV gets 25.3 kW/h over 100km ($5.06 per 100km). This compares with the LC79 at 9.6 litres/100km (at a cost of $2 a litre for $19.2 for 100km) as claimed by Toyota or 12.0 L/100km in test conditions ($24 for 100km).
In summary, the F150 Lightning EV costs 70.8 cents per kilometre and the LC79 costs 99.3cents per kilometre.
Mr Shipsides said the comparison shows the EV saves significantly on maintenance and fuel costs over the period of ownership.
By Neil Dowling