STRMfrmXMN

You clearly don't know how efficient I am.

All the time I'll see people recommend PSUs based on efficiency. This, although fundamentally a good idea so that you don't end up with a stick and some chewing gum powering your system, shows that most do not understand what 80 PLUS efficiency implies. Let's get a couple myths out of the way:

- "A higher 80 PLUS rating correlates to better quality." Incorrect. Certain components in a PSU do need to be of a certain quality to achieve higher efficiency (typically MOSFETs and diodes), however, quality of soldering, certain capacitors, etc, can be forgone in achieving an exemplary 80 PLUS rating. Electrical performance can be ditched as well. I like to use the EVGA G1 as an example of this. It's made of above average componentry, performs lackingly, and achieves gold efficiency. Then there's the EVGA B2, which is constructed about as well, performs better electrically, and advertises 80 PLUS Bronze efficiency (it actually achieves 80 PLUS Silver efficiency but that standard has been given up by and large). The EVGA B2 is a better PSU than the G1, yet it wastes slightly more electricity. This will correlate to a marginally more expensive power bill (pennies on the dollar for most home users) but ensures you a better power supply for your money. If, however, you plan to run a very power-hungry system for several hours on end then a more efficient power supply can save a more noticeable amount of money, especially if used heavily during hours of the day where electricity is more expensive.
 
On another note: some brands will undersell their unit's rated wattage if it can achieve higher efficiency at lower loads, I.E. a brand may sell a 550W 80 PLUS Platinum rated unit that can actually output 600W+ but would have to be advertised at a lower efficiency rating if they were to sell it at that rated wattage.

- "Higher 80 PLUS efficiency keeps the PSU cooler." Not to any serious degree, but this is technically true. A less efficient PSU will waste more electricity and wasted electricity is turned into heat. This is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the temperature of your room or system however as your system doesn't really draw that much power, thus it's better to optimize your system's airflow before throwing an AX1500i in your system to minimize heat created by the power supply. Since PSUs exhaust heat anyways the temperature of your system's hardware will not be impacted to any noticeable degree. Different PSUs also handle cooling differently and 80 PLUS efficiency doesn't correlate to the size of the fan used or the heat-dissipation abilities of the unit.
 
- "Power supplies are most efficient at around 50% load." This is, by and large, untrue, and seems to be set in stone by many simply because the peak efficiency measured by Ecova's testing of just three load levels is at 50% always. Many manufacturers or reviewers test PSU efficiency at different loads and post charts online, if this matters to you, but many PSUs are more efficient at 60% load than 50% and many are more efficient towards 30%. Don't buy a PSU based on how efficient it will be with whatever hardware you have in it. Different topologies and different PSU platforms handle efficiency differently. This should be a non-issue and you should be looking at buying the best PSU you can get with your money.
 
- "If you have a 1000W PSU with an 80% efficiency then you are only going to be able to get 800W from your power supply." This is incorrect. If you have an 80% efficient 1000W PSU then, when putting it under enough load to max its output you are going to be drawing more power from the walls - not losing output from your power supply. In this instance, putting a 1000W PSU under max load with an 80% efficiency would mean you're drawing 1250 watts from the wall. Math goes as such:
                                                                                                X / Y= Z                  
                                                                                        1000W / .80 = 1250
                                                                                  1250W drawn from the wall

X represents the wattage you're using (say 350W with a Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2080 Super under 100% system load), Y represents the efficiency in decimals (an 85% efficient PSU would be .85), and Z represents your total system draw from the wall. For this calculation we're assuming that the PSU in question has exactly enough wattage to power the system at 100% load and is 87% efficient at 100% draw, making it an 80+ Gold efficient power supply.


So in our case with the 3700X and 2080 Super:
                                                                                               350 / .87
                                                                      = 402 watts drawn from your power outlet
 
Note, however, that efficiency is not consistent throughout the load of the power supply.

Power supplies are more and less efficient at different loads. They are also more efficient when connected to a more powerful grid, the 230V nominal, which you may use if you don't live in North America. Check that your PSU allows for operation under both voltages. Most modern ones switch operation automatically. Other, often older units, will have a hard switch at the back of the unit to switch to choose from either 115V or 230V (note, DO NOT SWITCH TO THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OF YOUR WALL OUTLET! This doesn't usually end well!). This graph demonstrates the efficiency curve of a 2011-era Corsair TX750 when plugged into a 115V AC versus being plugged into a 230V AC. Note the TX750 is an 80+ Bronze rated PSU.
                
                                      
 

If you live in the United States, for example, you are using a 110-120V (115 nominal) AC through a standard NEMA 5-15 socket. Your power supply may be more or less efficient than your manufacturer claims because they may advertise efficiency through a 230V AC, though standard 80 PLUS efficiency testing is done on a 115V AC. Note that these tests for efficiency are also done under very specific test environments and do not necessarily reflect real-world scenarios so you may achieve higher or lower efficiency than rated by the manufacturer.

And just to finish up let's go list the various 80 PLUS ratings and their efficiency at different power draws on a 115V and 230V AC as well as 230V AC redundant.
                                                                               
 
                                                                          
Note that Silver isn't really used anymore and the efficiency of a PSU that would achieve Silver certification would typically just be rounded up or down to Bronze or Gold. "230V internal redundant" refers to efficiency in a redundant scenario like in a data center. This guy from Dell explains it.
 
One last thing I want to make a little more hard-hitting here. 80 PLUS efficiency ratings were invented to save corporations and industrial services money in the long-term, not home users! A company with 1000 computers all consuming 100W for 10 hours a day will see a much greater benefit from having all 80 PLUS Titanium units in their systems than you likely would with your system. Don't spend tons of money trying to get a super efficient PSU when a PSU that's just as good, costs less, and achieves a tier lower 80 PLUS rating is drastically cheaper. 
 
Resources:
Ecova (formerly Ecos), the 80 PLUS certification founder (and located very near me in Portland!)
Wikipedia - There's more info here if you want to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Plug Load Solutions - A list of all PSU companies and how many different PSUs they have that achieve Ecova's various 80 PLUS standards.

It will work but it won't work for very long, that's our point. Are you going to replace it soon? Fireworks look a lot cooler outdoors.

All the time I'll see people recommend PSUs based on efficiency. This, although fundamentally a good idea so that you don't end up with a stick and some chewing gum powering your system, shows that most do not understand what 80 PLUS efficiency implies. Let's get a couple myths out of the way:

- "A higher 80 PLUS rating correlates to better quality." Incorrect. Certain components in a PSU do need to be of a certain quality to achieve higher efficiency (typically MOSFETs and diodes), however, quality of soldering, certain capacitors, etc, can be forgone in achieving an exemplary 80 PLUS rating. Electrical performance can be ditched as well. I like to use the EVGA G1 as an example of this. It's made of above average componentry, performs lackingly, and achieves gold efficiency. Then there's the EVGA B2, which is constructed about as well, performs better electrically, and advertises 80 PLUS Bronze efficiency (it actually achieves 80 PLUS Silver efficiency but that standard has been given up by and large). The EVGA B2 is a better PSU than the G1, yet it wastes slightly more electricity. This will correlate to a marginally more expensive power bill (pennies on the dollar for most home users) but ensures you a better power supply for your money. If, however, you plan to run a very power-hungry system for several hours on end then a more efficient power supply can save a more noticeable amount of money, especially if used heavily during hours of the day where electricity is more expensive.
 
On another note: some brands will undersell their unit's rated wattage if it can achieve higher efficiency at lower loads, I.E. a brand may sell a 550W 80 PLUS Platinum rated unit that can actually output 600W+ but would have to be advertised at a lower efficiency rating if they were to sell it at that rated wattage.

- "Higher 80 PLUS efficiency keeps the PSU cooler." Not to any serious degree, but this is technically true. A less efficient PSU will waste more electricity and wasted electricity is turned into heat. This is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the temperature of your room or system however as your system doesn't really draw that much power, thus it's better to optimize your system's airflow before throwing an AX1500i in your system to minimize heat created by the power supply. Since PSUs exhaust heat anyways the temperature of your system's hardware will not be impacted to any noticeable degree. Different PSUs also handle cooling differently and 80 PLUS efficiency doesn't correlate to the size of the fan used or the heat-dissipation abilities of the unit.
 
- "Power supplies are most efficient at around 50% load." This is, by and large, untrue, and seems to be set in stone by many simply because the peak efficiency measured by Ecova's testing of just three load levels is at 50% always. Many manufacturers or reviewers test PSU efficiency at different loads and post charts online, if this matters to you, but many PSUs are more efficient at 60% load than 50% and many are more efficient towards 30%. Don't buy a PSU based on how efficient it will be with whatever hardware you have in it. Different topologies and different PSU platforms handle efficiency differently. This should be a non-issue and you should be looking at buying the best PSU you can get with your money.
 
- "If you have a 1000W PSU with an 80% efficiency then you are only going to be able to get 800W from your power supply." This is incorrect. If you have an 80% efficient 1000W PSU then, when putting it under enough load to max its output you are going to be drawing more power from the walls - not losing output from your power supply. In this instance, putting a 1000W PSU under max load with an 80% efficiency would mean you're drawing 1250 watts from the wall. Math goes as such:
                                                                                                X / Y= Z                  
                                                                                        1000W / .80 = 1250
                                                                                  1250W drawn from the wall

X represents the wattage you're using (say 350W with a Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2080 Super under 100% system load), Y represents the efficiency in decimals (an 85% efficient PSU would be .85), and Z represents your total system draw from the wall. For this calculation we're assuming that the PSU in question has exactly enough wattage to power the system at 100% load and is 87% efficient at 100% draw, making it an 80+ Gold efficient power supply.


So in our case with the 3700X and 2080 Super:
                                                                                               350 / .87
                                                                      = 402 watts drawn from your power outlet
 
Note, however, that efficiency is not consistent throughout the load of the power supply.

Power supplies are more and less efficient at different loads. They are also more efficient when connected to a more powerful grid, the 230V nominal, which you may use if you don't live in North America. Check that your PSU allows for operation under both voltages. Most modern ones switch operation automatically. Other, often older units, will have a hard switch at the back of the unit to switch to choose from either 115V or 230V (note, DO NOT SWITCH TO THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OF YOUR WALL OUTLET! This doesn't usually end well!). This graph demonstrates the efficiency curve of a 2011-era Corsair TX750 when plugged into a 115V AC versus being plugged into a 230V AC. Note the TX750 is an 80+ Bronze rated PSU.
                
                                      
 

If you live in the United States, for example, you are using a 110-120V (115 nominal) AC through a standard NEMA 5-15 socket. Your power supply may be more or less efficient than your manufacturer claims because they may advertise efficiency through a 230V AC, though standard 80 PLUS efficiency testing is done on a 115V AC. Note that these tests for efficiency are also done under very specific test environments and do not necessarily reflect real-world scenarios so you may achieve higher or lower efficiency than rated by the manufacturer.

And just to finish up let's go list the various 80 PLUS ratings and their efficiency at different power draws on a 115V and 230V AC as well as 230V AC redundant.
                                                                               
 
                                                                          
Note that Silver isn't really used anymore and the efficiency of a PSU that would achieve Silver certification would typically just be rounded up or down to Bronze or Gold. "230V internal redundant" refers to efficiency in a redundant scenario like in a data center. This guy from Dell explains it.
 
One last thing I want to make a little more hard-hitting here. 80 PLUS efficiency ratings were invented to save corporations and industrial services money in the long-term, not home users! A company with 1000 computers all consuming 100W for 10 hours a day will see a much greater benefit from having all 80 PLUS Titanium units in their systems than you likely would with your system. Don't spend tons of money trying to get a super efficient PSU when a PSU that's just as good, costs less, and achieves a tier lower 80 PLUS rating is drastically cheaper. 
 
Resources:
Ecova (formerly Ecos), the 80 PLUS certification founder (and located very near me in Portland!)
Wikipedia - There's more info here if you want to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Plug Load Solutions - A list of all PSU companies and how many different PSUs they have that achieve Ecova's various 80 PLUS standards.

All the time I'll see people recommend PSUs based on efficiency. This, although fundamentally a good idea so that you don't end up with a stick and some chewing gum powering your system, shows that most do not understand what 80 PLUS efficiency implies. Let's get a couple myths out of the way:

- "A higher 80 PLUS rating correlates to better quality." Incorrect. Certain components in a PSU do need to be of a certain quality to achieve higher efficiency (typically MOSFETs and diodes), however, quality of soldering, certain capacitors, etc, can be forgone in achieving an exemplary 80 PLUS rating. Electrical performance can be ditched as well. I like to use the EVGA G1 as an example of this. It's made of above average componentry, performs lackingly, and achieves gold efficiency. Then there's the EVGA B2, which is constructed about as well, performs better electrically, and advertises 80 PLUS Bronze efficiency (it actually achieves 80 PLUS Silver efficiency but that standard has been given up by and large). The EVGA B2 is a better PSU than the G1, yet it wastes slightly more electricity. This will correlate to a marginally more expensive power bill (pennies on the dollar for most home users) but ensures you a better power supply for your money. If, however, you plan to run a very power-hungry system for several hours on end then a more efficient power supply can save a more noticeable amount of money, especially if used heavily during hours of the day where electricity is more expensive.
 
On another note: some brands will undersell their unit's rated wattage if it can achieve higher efficiency at lower loads, I.E. a brand may sell a 550W 80 PLUS Platinum rated unit that can actually output 600W+ but would have to be advertised at a lower efficiency rating if they were to sell it at that rated wattage.

- "Higher 80 PLUS efficiency keeps the PSU cooler." Not to any serious degree, but this is technically true. A less efficient PSU will waste more electricity and wasted electricity is turned into heat. This is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the temperature of your room or system however as your system doesn't really draw that much power, thus it's better to optimize your system's airflow before throwing an AX1500i in your system to minimize heat created by the power supply. Since PSUs exhaust heat anyways the temperature of your system's hardware will not be impacted to any noticeable degree. Different PSUs also handle cooling differently and 80 PLUS efficiency doesn't correlate to the size of the fan used or the heat-dissipation abilities of the unit.
 
- "Power supplies are most efficient at around 50% load." This is, by and large, untrue, and seems to be set in stone by many simply because the peak efficiency measured by Ecova's testing of just three load levels is at 50% always. Many manufacturers or reviewers test PSU efficiency at different loads and post charts online, if this matters to you, but many PSUs are more efficient at 60% load than 50% and many are more efficient towards 30%. Don't buy a PSU based on how efficient it will be with whatever hardware you have in it. Different topologies and different PSU platforms handle efficiency differently. This should be a non-issue and you should be looking at buying the best PSU you can get with your money.
 
- "If you have a 1000W PSU with an 80% efficiency then you are only going to be able to get 800W from your power supply." This is incorrect. If you have an 80% efficient 1000W PSU then, when putting it under enough load to max its output you are going to be drawing more power from the walls - not losing output from your power supply. In this instance, putting a 1000W PSU under max load with an 80% efficiency would mean you're drawing 1250 watts from the wall. Math goes as such:
                                                                                                X / Y= Z                  
                                                                                        1000W / .80 = 1250
                                                                                  1250W drawn from the wall

X represents the wattage you're using (say 350W with a Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2080 Super under 100% system load), Y represents the efficiency in decimals (an 85% efficient PSU would be .85), and Z represents your total system draw from the wall. For this calculation we're assuming that the PSU in question has exactly enough wattage to power the system at 100% load and is 87% efficient at 100% draw, making it an 80+ Gold efficient power supply.


So in our case with the 3700X and 2080 Super:
                                                                                               350 / .87
                                                                      = 402 watts drawn from your power outlet
 
Note, however, that efficiency is not consistent throughout the load of the power supply.

Power supplies are more and less efficient at different loads. They are also more efficient when connected to a more powerful grid, the 230V nominal, which you may use if you don't live in North America. Check that your PSU allows for operation under both voltages. Most modern ones switch operation automatically. Other, often older units, will have a hard switch at the back of the unit to switch to choose from either 115V or 230V (note, DO NOT SWITCH TO THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OF YOUR WALL OUTLET! This doesn't usually end well!). This graph demonstrates the efficiency curve of a 2011-era Corsair TX750 when plugged into a 115V AC versus being plugged into a 230V AC. Note the TX750 is an 80+ Bronze rated PSU.
                
                                      
 

If you live in the United States, for example, you are using a 110-120V (115 nominal) AC through a standard NEMA 5-15 socket. Your power supply may be more or less efficient than your manufacturer claims because they may advertise efficiency through a 230V AC, though standard 80 PLUS efficiency testing is done on a 115V AC. Note that these tests for efficiency are also done under very specific test environments and do not necessarily reflect real-world scenarios so you may achieve higher or lower efficiency than rated by the manufacturer.

And just to finish up let's go list the various 80 PLUS ratings and their efficiency at different power draws on a 115V and 230V AC as well as 230V AC redundant.
                                                                               
 
                                                                          
Note that Silver isn't really used anymore and the efficiency of a PSU that would achieve Silver certification would typically just be rounded up or down to Bronze or Gold. "230V internal redundant" refers to efficiency in a redundant scenario like in a data center. This guy from Dell explains it.
 
One last thing I want to make a little more hard-hitting here. 80 PLUS efficiency ratings were invented to save corporations and industrial services money in the long-term, not home users! A company with 1000 computers all consuming 100W for 10 hours a day will see a much greater benefit from having all 80 PLUS Titanium units in their systems than you likely would with your system. Don't spend tons of money trying to get a super efficient PSU when a PSU that's just as good, costs less, and achieves a tier lower 80 PLUS rating is drastically cheaper. 
 
Resources:
Ecova (formerly Ecos), the 80 PLUS certification founder (and located very near me in Portland!)
Wikipedia - There's more info here if you want to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Plug Load Solutions - A list of all PSU companies and how many different PSUs they have that achieve Ecova's various 80 PLUS standards.

Here is me, being responsible and considering buying into a new OBXT
There is you, swingin in with my first love 🥴 Beautiful wagon!

Also howdy y'all been a minute

Since I'm new here and I'm a big petrolhead myself, I can only add one of my own toys and contribute right?
 

 
Exige CUP 430
Race headers, single 200 cell sportcat, and titanium backbox, carbon intake and a full PPF.
Car runs around 480hp at a little over 1000KGs. Pretty quick 😉 
 
Oh, and it's a manual 😎

All the time I'll see people recommend PSUs based on efficiency. This, although fundamentally a good idea so that you don't end up with a stick and some chewing gum powering your system, shows that most do not understand what 80 PLUS efficiency implies. Let's get a couple myths out of the way:

- "A higher 80 PLUS rating correlates to better quality." Incorrect. Certain components in a PSU do need to be of a certain quality to achieve higher efficiency (typically MOSFETs and diodes), however, quality of soldering, certain capacitors, etc, can be forgone in achieving an exemplary 80 PLUS rating. Electrical performance can be ditched as well. I like to use the EVGA G1 as an example of this. It's made of above average componentry, performs lackingly, and achieves gold efficiency. Then there's the EVGA B2, which is constructed about as well, performs better electrically, and advertises 80 PLUS Bronze efficiency (it actually achieves 80 PLUS Silver efficiency but that standard has been given up by and large). The EVGA B2 is a better PSU than the G1, yet it wastes slightly more electricity. This will correlate to a marginally more expensive power bill (pennies on the dollar for most home users) but ensures you a better power supply for your money. If, however, you plan to run a very power-hungry system for several hours on end then a more efficient power supply can save a more noticeable amount of money, especially if used heavily during hours of the day where electricity is more expensive.
 
On another note: some brands will undersell their unit's rated wattage if it can achieve higher efficiency at lower loads, I.E. a brand may sell a 550W 80 PLUS Platinum rated unit that can actually output 600W+ but would have to be advertised at a lower efficiency rating if they were to sell it at that rated wattage.

- "Higher 80 PLUS efficiency keeps the PSU cooler." Not to any serious degree, but this is technically true. A less efficient PSU will waste more electricity and wasted electricity is turned into heat. This is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the temperature of your room or system however as your system doesn't really draw that much power, thus it's better to optimize your system's airflow before throwing an AX1500i in your system to minimize heat created by the power supply. Since PSUs exhaust heat anyways the temperature of your system's hardware will not be impacted to any noticeable degree. Different PSUs also handle cooling differently and 80 PLUS efficiency doesn't correlate to the size of the fan used or the heat-dissipation abilities of the unit.
 
- "Power supplies are most efficient at around 50% load." This is, by and large, untrue, and seems to be set in stone by many simply because the peak efficiency measured by Ecova's testing of just three load levels is at 50% always. Many manufacturers or reviewers test PSU efficiency at different loads and post charts online, if this matters to you, but many PSUs are more efficient at 60% load than 50% and many are more efficient towards 30%. Don't buy a PSU based on how efficient it will be with whatever hardware you have in it. Different topologies and different PSU platforms handle efficiency differently. This should be a non-issue and you should be looking at buying the best PSU you can get with your money.
 
- "If you have a 1000W PSU with an 80% efficiency then you are only going to be able to get 800W from your power supply." This is incorrect. If you have an 80% efficient 1000W PSU then, when putting it under enough load to max its output you are going to be drawing more power from the walls - not losing output from your power supply. In this instance, putting a 1000W PSU under max load with an 80% efficiency would mean you're drawing 1250 watts from the wall. Math goes as such:
                                                                                                X / Y= Z                  
                                                                                        1000W / .80 = 1250
                                                                                  1250W drawn from the wall

X represents the wattage you're using (say 350W with a Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2080 Super under 100% system load), Y represents the efficiency in decimals (an 85% efficient PSU would be .85), and Z represents your total system draw from the wall. For this calculation we're assuming that the PSU in question has exactly enough wattage to power the system at 100% load and is 87% efficient at 100% draw, making it an 80+ Gold efficient power supply.


So in our case with the 3700X and 2080 Super:
                                                                                               350 / .87
                                                                      = 402 watts drawn from your power outlet
 
Note, however, that efficiency is not consistent throughout the load of the power supply.

Power supplies are more and less efficient at different loads. They are also more efficient when connected to a more powerful grid, the 230V nominal, which you may use if you don't live in North America. Check that your PSU allows for operation under both voltages. Most modern ones switch operation automatically. Other, often older units, will have a hard switch at the back of the unit to switch to choose from either 115V or 230V (note, DO NOT SWITCH TO THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OF YOUR WALL OUTLET! This doesn't usually end well!). This graph demonstrates the efficiency curve of a 2011-era Corsair TX750 when plugged into a 115V AC versus being plugged into a 230V AC. Note the TX750 is an 80+ Bronze rated PSU.
                
                                      
 

If you live in the United States, for example, you are using a 110-120V (115 nominal) AC through a standard NEMA 5-15 socket. Your power supply may be more or less efficient than your manufacturer claims because they may advertise efficiency through a 230V AC, though standard 80 PLUS efficiency testing is done on a 115V AC. Note that these tests for efficiency are also done under very specific test environments and do not necessarily reflect real-world scenarios so you may achieve higher or lower efficiency than rated by the manufacturer.

And just to finish up let's go list the various 80 PLUS ratings and their efficiency at different power draws on a 115V and 230V AC as well as 230V AC redundant.
                                                                               
 
                                                                          
Note that Silver isn't really used anymore and the efficiency of a PSU that would achieve Silver certification would typically just be rounded up or down to Bronze or Gold. "230V internal redundant" refers to efficiency in a redundant scenario like in a data center. This guy from Dell explains it.
 
One last thing I want to make a little more hard-hitting here. 80 PLUS efficiency ratings were invented to save corporations and industrial services money in the long-term, not home users! A company with 1000 computers all consuming 100W for 10 hours a day will see a much greater benefit from having all 80 PLUS Titanium units in their systems than you likely would with your system. Don't spend tons of money trying to get a super efficient PSU when a PSU that's just as good, costs less, and achieves a tier lower 80 PLUS rating is drastically cheaper. 
 
Resources:
Ecova (formerly Ecos), the 80 PLUS certification founder (and located very near me in Portland!)
Wikipedia - There's more info here if you want to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Plug Load Solutions - A list of all PSU companies and how many different PSUs they have that achieve Ecova's various 80 PLUS standards.

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

I think you're intentionally being daft if you don't think our lack of adoption is mostly fueled by the incredibly potent forces of fossil fuel industry lobbying. Electricity as a mainstay to the level we have it now is only a relatively recent phenomenon. If you think lithium mining is morally concerning then wait till ya hear about how many wars we've been in over fossil fuel and why we have such an expansive and expensive military in the states... Oh, need I remind you about fracking incidents like what happened with Deepwater Horizon in 2010 with BP. It should also be noted you cannot refuel an ICE car with solar panels, which is what I meant by "renewably."
 
Thanks!
 
Atlantic blue pearl! This was taken through Lightroom which kinda dulls the color a lot. The color is a lot brighter in real life.
 
Thanks! Yes, the Brembo brakes are from a 2004 STi.
 
The fronts bolt right up without issue and the rears need some adapting and trimming of the dust shield to fit the parking brake assembly and all that. Way, way expensive considering I don't track the car but the pedal feel is so much better and they look way cooler!
If you were that strongly involved in the industry I think you'd understand that I'm referring to the MPG equivalent as kWh/100 km. Range is such a variable thing, hence we shouldn't be using it, hence I say that EVs are in their infancy - the public adoption of it is still extremely low and people can only think in range anxiety measures of EV efficiency even though longer range doesn't indicate more efficiency. Your example of range being an indicator of when the car is going to be "empty" is a perfect example, although despite the thousands of electric cars I've driven, I've never been stranded by one. The E-Tron we use as a shuttle still goes a bit after it hits "0 miles" as did all the Bolts at the Chevy dealer. My assumption is that you were working on vehicles that underwent far harsher conditions than cars typically do. I would probably agree that I'd rather have a crane with an ICE backup, for example.
 
I work for an Audi dealer and, although they don't break much (and don't worry, Audi still found a way to make electric cars break!) the only maintenance that they recommend are tire rotations every 10K miles and coolant changes every 100K or something along those lines. The Bolts I worked with at Chevy were every 140K for the cooling system. Obviously stuff like window regulators and door lock actuators can still break on these cars, but they don't have all the oily bits that break. ICE cars need transmission fluid changes, they need way, way more frequent coolant changes, differential fluid changes, new clutches, new air intake filters, new brake components far more often, etc. It's deliberately obtuse to say that they need just as much regular maintenance. They simply do not.
I have an instagram for the car if you'd like more pictures! It has a lot done. Just hit 238K miles yesterday! It has too much to list off the top of my head here, but you can see the suspension is lowered, the Mach V wing, etc. 

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

They would only be the same if they were all EV or ICE because EV's don't require a fuel pump for example. Some problems I ran into, that weren't related to the nature of the vehicle being electric or ICE were the same such as brakes or bad wheel bearings as examples of that.
No - Usually more expensive or the same at the very least.
As long as you did the maintenance and they were treated right by the operator(s) you rarely had problems from them regardless if it was gas, diesel, LP or electric powered.
Some situations of course were worse than others.
 
I can tell you about a ghost code - Code 19 on certain Nissan electric lifts of a given model. Indicates the battery electrolyte was low but there was never anything in the lift to read the battery's electrolyte level!

It was a feature that was planned but never implemented.
The authors/programmers of it's control module at the factory forgot to remove the code for it from the module's firmware so there it was. All it took to trigger it was a certain small 5A fuse to blow and it would code out and stop in it's tracks, would not do a thing while this code was popping up.
Replace the small 5A fuse, clear it out - Back in biz again.
 
I'm not ready at all and TBH this sudden rush to EV's will actually work against itself.
It needs to happen more slowly to give time for all the infrastructure to catch up and the tech to further mature so it's reliable, feasable to implement in terms of support AND for it to be economical too.
By the time all that comes to be I'll probrably be outta here anyway or at the very least, no longer driving.

Well these certainly brought me joy

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

The issues you describe, to me, sound like issues that any machine could have whether EV or not. Problems coming up so often that solving them becomes routine. How many EA888 water pumps have our techs done in a quarter of book time? 
 
Also, were these forklifts that were on the cheaper end (I don't know the market at all, sorry. I've heard of Hyster!) and thus particularly hard to keep running? I'm assuming the electric ones were more expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Most EVs are more expensive than most other ICE cars because the technology is still expensive and will take awhile to become cheaper.
 
From what I can tell from every EV car I've had to help with or seen come in, they are much more reliable than competing ICE cars. Problems they encountered were due to poor engineering. The Bolt EV having battery fires comes to mind, a'la Ford Pinto. Our RS E-tron GTs have 6 or 7 ghost codes that we have to hide from the ECU when the cars come in because the fix is a software update that Audi says will be released next year. These things could still happen with ICE cars. On Audis, it sounds like the EVs are better interconnected to the ECUs in the car and thus give more prevalent data for diagnostics. Whereas an ICE car could have a P0420 for a vacuum leak, a bad catalytic converter, a bad O2 sensor, etc. Also, to be fair, most people with EVs do not drive them anywhere near as much as the average ICE car owner. 
 
Time will tell. I'm pretty ready for most cars to be electric. The power grid issues and technological hurdles are what's getting in my way 😠
I got lots of pics, some not as up-to-date (none of these pics show the Mach V wing), but I got a few!
 

Yes, I worked a a few places along the way, a Nissan and Clarklift dealership and after that I was an in-house maintenance mech/tech working on Crowns for awhile too in a DC.
 
No, it's not an obtuse thing to say - I will admit I didn't properly describe my meaning of it (That's on me) but yes, they do require the same level of maintenance in terms of how often you do it and depending on it's actual use/useage enviroment, may require it even more than you'd think.

Once a month/200hrs of operation is the norm and that's what we went by but in some cases we'd do them every 100 hrs, depending on the lift type and other variables about it's use/enviroment as mentioned.
This was important since some places would run these things 24/7 all the time so it didn't take long to rack up some hrs on one and you had to be on top of it. Normally (Depending on where you live) a vehicle for driving gets about an hour or two per day on it on average. 
These were going all the time aside from battery changes, shift changes, breakdowns and such that would cause it to stop because that's how it is and you can imagine the amount of wear & tear these things accumilated and how quickly it did accumilate because of it.

The electronics themselves do hold up rather well, considering all the physical shock and banging they experience right along with the hrs put on them non-stop but when things go wrong, it can be a real pain to diagnose and fix correctly and that's when the experience on them pays off.
For example, with a Crown reach truck there are certain codes that will tend to pop up far more often than others, I know you know what I'm referring to and can tell after some time what it means because you've seen it so often - It just becomes routine.

As a particular example, in the case of a Crown like I was working on, code 331 always meant the traction motor encoder was bad.
You just grabbed another one, replaced it for the older one, cleared the code and you're done.

There were other things too like when one would get "Stuck in the rack" while stocking pallets up high.
It was almost always operator error and the lift would code out and shut down. Try to restart it, same thing would happen so it they coudn't get it clear of the rack to lower the mast and get going again.
I'd just go out to the lift and after accessing the service menu, clear the code so it would try to function and then after repeating these steps a few times (Would keep coding/shutting down out until I got the forks/carriage up) I got it out and the mast down.

 EV's, while different and their tech is well advanced in comparison, it's still the same basic thing because of it's nature - That being it's all based on electronics. It's the same concept as a PC you can build today vs one that was built 20 years ago - Even though a new one is more advanced and can do more, faster, all the basics of what it is still applies.
 

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh excellent

Used to work at a JLR dealer, the I-Paces are brakefluid and cabin filters every 20k/2y and thats it, believe coolant is every 100k/10 years

I for one would love an EV truck for work. Give. Give. Give.
It would be excellent for inner city work with less noise, and where range becomes less of an issue.
 

That's one thing that I really like, and want myself.
 
I just want to be able to hook my car up in the evening when I get home, and have a good charge for the day after. Would be so nice to have a couple of solar panels on the roof, and a battery for the house to charge the car and power the house during peak demand to decease costs, etc.
 
For me - That would mean zero visits to charging stations for 99% of the trips that I do. I'm more than good enough with less than 150 km's of real world range.

Twas in for 'low oil pressure warning on dash once', I noted oil was super sooty black for 8800 miles left on a 10,000 mile OCI, checked oil pressure with mechanical gauge and found it kind of around the minimums but above them when hot tho not by much. Suggested switching up 5W-40 as we didn't know what had been used in it, and if the message came back to shop for another car. Well I had some surprise when I reset the oil miles counter and was greeted by 'next oil change in 18,700 miles' which means that the oil had about 10K on it which makes much more sense. Also ended up replacing a ripped PCV diaphragm which hopefully helps with the P0420 it's throwing sometimes despite a fresh (but aftermarket) cat converter on it.

300 employees and ya'll have an entire department for IT? Do your responsibilities overlap with the car's ECU or the tools the techs use to service vehicles? Apologies for digressing, years back I did technical work for an automotive retailer and a couple of the local Chevy dealerships in my area so I'm a bit curious. 

It is surprising to see that a small org of ~300 people would use a service as expensive as zendesk, but given the cars you're selling and servicing that fits. Thanks for your feedback regarding Zendesk.

Miles per kW?
A battery has certain amount of kWh ... and a fuel tank has a certain amount of liters/gallons what ever the fuck you measure in ... makes sense to me