There is absolutely no possible way an EV without an engine is going to emit 1850 times as much PM as an otherwise comparable combustion-engine vehicle. It completely fails the smell test. There is no tailpipe, so there's that. The EV relies less upon its mechanical brakes - regenerative braking doesn't use them - at 50 000 km the brake pads and rotors on my Bolt look like they're practically new, so there's less PM from brake pad and rotor material. There's much hubbub about EVs having more tire wear due to more weight; I think it's because a bunch of them have automatic ride-height-adjustable suspension and they can't have steering geometry optimised for minimum tire wear throughout the ride-height adjustment range (Rivian, Tesla, probably others, not mine). At 50 000 km (of which about 12 000 were on the winter tires) the OEM tires on my Bolt are probably a third worn, and they'll be replaced before legal minimum, so they're heading for probable replacement around (guess) 80 000 km which I would consider to be in a normal range.
There is no shortage of FUD circulating. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Certain EVs - some Teslas come to mind - come with high-performance summer tires as original equipment. Long life is not a design priority with those. Combine that with having 600 horsepower on top and perhaps a heavy-footed driver and there's gonna be tire wear. But not 1800 times as much tire wear as some other vehicle!
Certain EVs - Rivian comes to mind - seem to be getting a reputation for excessive tire wear. Those have ride-height-adjustable suspension with a pretty large height adjustment range. I'm suspicious about this being the real problem. Those vehicles have an independent upper and lower unequal-length wishbone suspension design front and rear.
- Unless the suspension is designed for zero camber gain - and that's not normally the case, and impossible if the upper and lower arms are either non-parallel or unequal length with the normal case being both - there is only going to be one or maybe two ride heights at which the camber is zero (or at the minimum-tire-wear condition). At any other ride height, it's going to have positive or negative camber. If the suspension is the usual arrangement - upper arm shorter and inclined more - then the lowest suspension setting (for highway range) is going to have significant negative camber. OR, if the alignment is set up for minimum tire wear at that ride height, it's going to have significant positive camber at any other ride height. It would be interesting for someone who has one of these vehicles, to put it on a good alignment machine, and post a camber curve (camber as a function of ride height).
- Unless the suspension is designed for zero bump steer at both ends - and if there is any designed-in roll understeer, which would normally be the case - it's only going to have one or maybe two ride heights at which the toe is zero. Roll understeer means heading towards front toe-out and rear toe-in with suspension compression (lower ride height). Toe-out is bad at both ends, so in the interest of not having actual toe-out, more likely it has zero front toe and some non-zero rear toe-in at low (highway-cruise) ride height and goes towards toe-in at higher ride height up front and towards zero out back. Again, front and rear toe curves would be interesting to see.
The Ford Lightning should not have this problem. For one thing, it doesn't have ride-height-adjustable suspension. For another, the rear suspension (which is going to change in ride height more due to cargo loading) is a rare modern example of pure trailing arm geometry, which (ideally) does not change toe or camber with suspension movement.
My Bolt does not have this problem. Not ride-height-adjustable. Rear suspension is a twist-beam axle, which has insignificant toe or camber change with ride height. Front is MacPherson strut same as practically any other modern GM car.
