I’ve been told (have not researched this yet) EV’s need more frequent tire rotation and go thru tires quite a bit faster than fossil fuel vehicles due to weight & acceleration aspects of the EV and that tire companies are coming out with EV only tires
Wondering if this will be an issue with Scout vehicles
Not trying to compare vehicles or maintenance costs, just looking at pro’s & cons of the EV
There's a lot of fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) being peddled against EVs out there. I would seriously question everything that claims an EV is worse in costs or environmental impact and look at the source of that claim. Instead, ask the people (not the influencers who gin up controversy) driving them for their real-world experience or read a bunch of factual science papers about their costs and impacts, not the selectively-picked headlines driving an agenda.
I have >43,000 miles on my Mustang's original All Season tires and they still have 8/32 tread left (from their original 10/32). I have rotated them four times. I usually run them slightly overinflated (42 PSI instead of 39 cold, but I have them at 37 right now because of winter). I run them slightly higher because I like the way they handle. I really wanted these to wear out sooner because I wanted to replace them with something I like better, but I'm afraid they'll outlast their 55,000 mile treadwear warranty by at least 20,000 miles.
I've seen some people wear their tires out in 20,000 miles. Mostly, it's their driving habits. It's ridiculously fun to slam the go pedal down, but of course that's going to impact tread wear, even when it doesn't leave a strip of rubber (dang traction control working at 1000 Hz makes it unfairly difficult to squeal the tires). People who drive like they stole the vehicle might wear out their tires more quickly in an EV. But that's because it's more fun to drive an EV. That's not the same as EVs wear out tires more quickly. Some drivers of EVs wear out tires more quickly, just as some drivers of Corvettes wear out their tires more quickly.
Does the weight matter? Sure, some (for the same formulation of tire, it seems to be about 5-20% faster wear for every 1,000 pounds more weight, but that's highly dependent on the formulation, the air pressure, the road surface, and the driver). Tire manufacturers have been reformulating their tires every year or so for decades to provide better/different handling and they're learning to do that with EV-specific tires. Just like there are specific tires for light trucks or summer handling or mud or snow or whatever. If someone makes a poor decision of which tire to put on after they wear out their original tires, it may lead to unexpected tire wear, but that's a failure of the owner, it's not caused by the vehicle.
A driver of an EV who likes to use regen a lot can get significantly less wear on their tires than for a similarly-capable gas car. A taxi service in Scotland added a bunch of Nissan Leafs to its fleet and drove those alongside its diesel taxis with the same passenger capacity. They found they were replacing the tires less often on the Leafs than on the diesel taxis, despite the much better acceleration of the Leaf. Their brakes wear much, much less as well. They were also paying less in maintenance and energy costs.
Will the Scout wear out tires more quickly? With the 35s and 37s some people are talking about, I think many of those are going to wear out quickly simply because they'll be running big, knobby tires that sing to their drivers while on the highway, which is likely where most of their miles will be spent, just like they do on Jeeps and big pickups and SUVs. Will the weight of the Scout cause any additional wear? Some, yeah, but not as much as the FUD makes people seem to think. 33s and smaller tires at the proper inflation will see minimal extra wear compared with any other vehicle of similar capability with the proper tires and proper pressure. That is, except for the people who find it fun to slam the go pedal down. They're going to need to get new tires pretty regularly, as has always been the case.
Before I purchase any vehicle I do a total cost of ownership (TCO) calculation for all of the vehicles I'm considering. I wrote up some software to do this modeling and verified it works with past vehicles (I keep the receipts). These models include fuel costs, replacing tires, replacing fluids, loan costs, insurance costs, registration costs, other maintenance costs, upfront costs, resale value, etc. I've run these comparisons taking into account the fluctuating costs of energy, maintenance, labor, and other costs in >100,000 model runs per comparison (for millions of total model runs). For the 7,000 to 20,000+ miles per year of driving that we do, in 97-99% of the model runs, our Lightning Lariat TCO is cheaper than an equivalently-equipped F-150 Lariat within two years of purchasing. That is, after two years of owning the Lightning, I'm making money compared to if I'd purchased its gas equivalent. Our Mustang Mach-E is cheaper than an equivalently-capable mid-sized SUV within 3 years of purchasing.
I'll have to reevaluate the model inputs for the Mustang since the tires are lasting longer than I had anticipated and I'm spending less on maintenance.
