Electric Cars Are Suddenly Becoming Affordable
nytimes.com
More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.
More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/5QorR
Oh, so you mean used electric cars.
Oh, so you mean not yet, but maybe affordable soon.
For fuck's sake...
New cars have always been expensive and out of reach for most, which is why the average new car buyer is well into their 50s.
I don't see how people can logically make an argument about the necessity of switching to EVs for the environment while also demanding that everyone gets a brand new car. Scrapping a bunch of perfectly good cars to build new ones is not going to help out our climate issue.
I'm not seeing "cash for clunkers" types of arguments here - I've always seen EV adoption as more about market share of new cars rather than share of the entire fleet.
Of course the former leads to the latter, eventually.
KIt’s too early for a “cash for clunkers” type of thing. That will be more effective when EVs are the typical new car and we want to retire older used gasoline cars a little faster. I do hope to see it soon,but to it this soon
I read that the issue with used EV's is that you eventually need to replace the battery pack which can sometimes cost you as much as the car.
Edit: Seems I was misinformed. Glad to hear that replacing EV batteries is not much of a concern.
I mean, you eventually need to replace the motor in an ICE car, but most people won’t… they’ll buy another vehicle instead. Most EVs lose a minimal amount of range over time… around 10% over 200k miles. Battery replacements are expensive, but not much more than replacing an engine on an ICE vehicle, unless you do all the labor yourself, and no one should be kidding themselves into believing they will actually replace a battery before they’d replace the vehicle… much like a car whose engine shits the bed. And the amount of savings you have in fuel and maintenance offsets the difference significantly, especially if you get to the 200k mark without trading up for a newer vehicle. Not to mention that there are Teslas on the road with over a million miles on them. You may not be as lucky, but 500k without replacing batteries is not uncommon.
I’ve driven a used Tesla for the last 4 years and have 110k miles on it. It’s still humming like the day it came off the line. It’s quieter, faster, has more torque and power, and I get more compliments on it than I ever did on the ford trucks, vw coupes, or Buick sedans I ever drove. I’ve only replaced tires, windshield wipers, wiper fluid, and the 12v battery and haven’t had any maintenance issues. I drive a lot, all over the country, and save around $2k a year in fuel costs compared to when I drove a Buick. I travel all around the country and have few problems finding charging stations (mostly when way off the grid… like Great Basin national park off-the-grid… but still found a charger) and have never been stranded or ran out of mileage on a given drive. A few pigtails and I can charge at any RV park or campground nationwide.
There is far too much misinformation about EVs and concerns with range or charging infrastructure or whatever the oil companies want you to be afraid of, and the savings in fuel costs outweigh any inconveniences I’ve experienced 10 times over.
Take the leap and you’ll never look back. I’ll never buy another ICE vehicle again. It feels like throwing money away.
I get that Elon is a bipolar asshole at times, but the mission to provide the infrastructure for a more sustainable future is what we need and the user experience is far better than reported.
I've wanted to get an EV for years now. Just don't have the infrastructure in my area yet and out of my price range. But I didn't consider buying used. It's great to hear that I shouldn't concern myself with replacing the battery.
If you have any way to charge at home, it’s a huge money saver and convenience. You’ll only get about 3 miles per hour off a normal 120v wall outlet, so maybe 20-30 miles over night. If you commute more than around 200 miles a week, you’ll have to have supplementary charging once a week or so.
If you can install a 240v charger, you’ll get between 25-35 miles per hour of charge, so you’ll easily get a full charge over night. It’s usually around $500 for the equipment and $500ish for the install, depending on the area, but it makes up for it over time. Imagine never having to factor time in to stop for gas on the way to work in the morning.
If you don’t have access to a wall plug and can’t install your own 240v charger, it may not be the right decision for you. If it is manageable for you, it’ll be a huge convenience and a big money saver.
Bought mine for around 40k 4 years ago and have saved around 8k in fuel costs… but I drive a lot.
While it was an easier choice for me due to good infrastructure, I haven’t needed it. The key is charging at home, if you can do that.
I installed a level 2 charger at home - electrician cost was similar to adding an electric stove circuit. I have the car configured to charge to 80% by default to maximize battery health, and plug-in when I get down to 50%. My typical “overnight” charging takes 2 hours. If going on a trip, I just override to 100% the night before and wake up to a full charge. Maybe I haven’ gone on many road trips yet, but I only used one public charger so far, and it was over 100 miles away
Infrastructure needs depend on how the car is used. I have a basic level 1 charger (120v/15a household outlet) and so far have used public chargers zero times. There has only been one time where I didn't have enough charge for back to back trips to the next major city over, and had to rely on our second (ICE) car. Could have been avoided with a better charger. I have been hitting ~700 miles per month. One thing to keep in mind is that you just need enough charge to get to your destination and back. Going to the gas station is a big hassle so you are used to always filling up from empty. With the EV, my house is my refill station, so I just connect the cord every time I park. Even after a long trip where the car is near empty, charging slowly for 2 hours is enough for a quick errand. I'll admit that I would have some charging anxiety if I only had the EV with no backup, but practically speaking it just doesn't become an issue. Just keep enough charge to make it to the nearest hospital, and get a level 2 charger (240v/>=32amp) for almost 4x the charging rate.
And for the Europeans in the audience, we have 240V and 15A in a normal wall socket for twice the charging speed of our American friends but half the speed of their level 2.
I rented a Chevy Bolt once and it came with a charging cable that would plug into a regular 110V outlet. I never tried it, but online it says that chafing method is about 7.5 hours. The Bolt’s battery was 250 miles, so only useful around town if there’s zero infrastructure in the area. But within those parameters, still useful if you can charge at home.
The idea that replacing an EV battery costs as much as the car itself is total rubbish. Sure, batteries aren't cheap, but they're not going to bankrupt you. Modern EV batteries last a long time, often more than a decade, and are covered by solid warranties. Plus, battery prices are dropping fast as technology gets better. Scaremongering about battery costs is just plain wrong and stops people from going green, which is the last thing we need
And if you buy a used car you will eventually need to replace a ton of parts. Honestly, unless the used EV that you buy is a Leaf, many EV batteries will last 200k miles and still have 85-90% of their range left.
If it’s even possible. I’ve personally swapped the main battery pack on a Gen 1 Prius. Not easy, but more tedious than technical. Lifting the assembled unit was a hell of a chore but a coulple strapping dudes managed it. Reconditioned cells are available in a lot of places. I’ve had a Nissan Leaf and would get another one, but even finding a battery, let alone any info on swapping it was pretty much impossible.
The second generation(2018 on) had a defect in their battery packs that caused a lot of them to need full replacements right after Nissan announced they weren't making Leafs anymore, so any extra batteries that might exist were used in Warranty repairs for that
Took my shop just shy of a full year
Why don’t we stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies to the tune of $1Trillion Anually, and instead put all of that money towards subsidizing purchases and further R&D of electric vehicles? Oil and Gas corporations could enjoy the competition of the free market, and we the people could get access to new EVs for under $10k out of pocket - it would be a win-win!
Like 16 years ago you could buy a brand new chevy aveo with an msrp of $10,300.
Small econoboxes used to be cheap and affordable.
Regardless of where you fall on EVs or new car pricing, the Aveo was hot garbage and there's a reason why they only cost $10k. This is the same reason why you don't see any of them on the road anymore.
True, but at the time you could get a Toyota Echo or a Honda Fit or a Ford Fiesta or even a Nissan Versa which are all small cars that no longer exist.
And I see plenty of them still on the road.
Those were priced higher and comparable to the compacts like the Corolla, Civic, and Sentra.
I think there just wasn't enough demand since people would rather pay a little more to get a little more car than they need for those rare times when a lot of cargo space was needed. Additionally, tiny CUVs like the RAV4 have increased in popularity quite a bit and still get great fuel economy, further reducing demand for the sub-compacts. These cars were also marketed toward young people like college students who have a harder time affording a new car these days and would rather buy a good used one for much cheaper.
You're not wrong about any of that, much to my dismay. I was just pointing out that those cars did exist and car companies can make them. The market and regulatory conditions just don't make it profitable.
If most of the people buying cars are in their 60s they're going to want economic cars with high seats because their knees and backs can't take getting into something lower. (I can say that because my knees and back already hurt, but I'm too stubborn to stop driving my compact manual car.)
There were a lot of good ones on the road that were sub $14 that still exist and are good for 200,000+ miles. I just pointed out one of the absolute cheapest.
That’s ridiculous. Who’s demanding that?
We need to push new EVs, because there are not enough used ones. What do you think a used car starts as? Be happy every time someone buys a new EV, because there’s another used one in 3+ years.
I got a new EV, because I needed a vehicle, and my pattern is to buy new and drive into the ground
And of course Tesla's are cheap used, they are an absolute train-wreck in the quality control department.
Yeah, rhat they are.
You're not wrong, but in fairness the headline says EVs are becoming affordable, not that they are affordable.
he's right; brand new ev's go for about $10k outside the unites states; they're already affordable but big tariffs are being employed to discourage buying them.
curiously, even the 100% american tariff still makes these ev's more affordable than anything in that article and i'm wondering what's going to happen once they start building them in mexico (ie nafta).
They don't in Australia they're still 50k min. We give massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies too
they're selling out so fast that australia hasn't gotten many yet.
interestingly australia might be the only western country to get them since they have a free trade agreement with china while the united states and europe are putting extremely hefty tariffs on them to protect their own respective automotive industries.
No we also have massive tariffs on them too hence the 60k price tag. AUSTRALIA IS OWNED BY BIG OIL.
What do y'all thinking "becoming" means? If they meant they are already affordable, they would have used the term "are."
The problem is that they have been "becoming" affordable for 25 years, since the EV1.
Yes, they are slowly becoming more affordable.
Becoming would mean in the process of being affordable. Meaning some have already become, meaning there are affordable cars now.
Pedant.
Idk wtf any sensible person would willingly buy a new car unless there was no other option.
I don't know. I've never had a new car.
Uswd cars have gotten crazy expensive relative to new in the past few years. If the difference between new and used is only like $1k new can make sense.
Not only that, most of those cars coming available are from Hertz — they’re rental cars. But not just any rental cars… most are from Hertz’s Uber fleet.
So these are EVs with over 100,000 miles on them, worn out back seats and blistered rear armrests that have been driven by employees using a fleet lease vehicle. And migrating the cars’ software ownership to an unlocked non-fleet private owner state has proven to be… difficult.
i had the same feeling while knowing that people outside the united states can get brand new ev's for $10k today.
I paid too much for my EV, but am glad to see the prices come down for future buyers. When the price is competitive with ICE vehicles, I think we’ll see rapid adoption.
I got my EV used, and in three years I've already saved more on gas than I paid for it.
EVs are so much cheaper to maintain and operate; no gas, no oil changes, no transmission, no sparkplugs or timing belts. If the sale prices are close, the total cost of ownership will be massively in favor of the EV.
Modern cars in general are cheaper to operate. Have had a hybrid for 7 or 8 years. Other than annual oil changes and one change of tires, it has been zero maintenance. Still on the original brake pads thanks to regen braking (which EVs also benefit from, but the extra weight forces more frequent use of friction brakes.)
A Nissan Leaf weighs about the same as a Prius Prime. Many EVs are way heavier though.
Wait WHAT? EVs don’t require regular maintenance like a normal car does? That’s SICK (if true)
It does require maintenance, but you don't have to worry about the engine, transmission, turbos and other related moving parts. Your maintenance is basically brakes, tyres and other simple and cheap wear and tear parts.
So no oil changes and shit like that? That’s is the biggest pro I’ve ever heard for EVs lmao
Drawback is EVs tend to run through tires faster, and you should be careful selecting tires because they can have a drastic effect on range (the better ones obviously being far more expensive). Also, road noise from cheap tires is much more noticeable without several thousand controlled explosions per minute happening three feet from your face.
That's a myth. EVs have EV specific tyres. Just like trucks have truck specific tyres. No one would drive trucks if you were forced to use small car tyres on them.
Anyone who's owned an EV and a comparable ICE vehicle knows this isn't a myth at all lmao. They weigh more, and all that instant torque at 0 RPM means that you're almost guaranteed to go through tires faster.
Again, that's NOT how it works.
Yes, it very much is. I've owned 2 EVs for 6 years at this point, they absolutely go through tires faster than my ICE vehicles, even on the factory tires. Go to any EV owner forum, and you're almost guaranteed to see complaints about tire wear. It's very, very much a thing.
Now, it's not necessarily inherent to EVs, because it's down to weight and torque output, so a big heavy truck with lots of torque can also burn through tires plenty quick. But still, EVs are much heavier than an equivalent ICE.
Take a look at 2 vehicles from Kia that are dimensionally almost identical, the Telluride and EV9. The Telluride weighs 4,522lbs in its maxed out AWD trim, while the base FWD trim of the EV9 weighs 5093lbs, and the AWD version is over 1200lbs heavier than the equivalent Telluride at 5,732lbs.
If you've got a pretty typical midsized modern vehicle around 3000lbs, go ahead and drive the next set of tires with 700-800lbs of sandbags in your car and see how your tires hold up.
Not to mention there are already a number of studies showing that total PM emissions from EVs are only marginally better than ICE cars, if at all, despite having zero tailpipe and reduced PM from braking due to regen. Now, try and guess where all that additional particulate is coming from...
Get yourself proper tyres, mate.
Is this specific to cars¿? I have an EV scooter (more powerful than a moped and without pedals) and I have not observed higher tyre wear. But then again my scooter isnt much much heavier than its petrol counterpart. Cars on the other hand do see a drastic increase in weight when going from ICE to EV
I would assume it’s because EVs may be heavier than there ICE counterparts.
Edit:thanks for the downvote. But…
Nope. I mean I've replaced the tires once and windshield wipers a couple times, refilled the wiper fluid, but that's about it. The thing that powers the car is a sealed electric motor, not too unlike the kind you'd find in a washing machine; it works for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles without service. It's just magnets and wires inside, no explosions or soot to gum up the works.
Since the motor also works as a regenerative brake, you need to service the brake pads much less often. And since the 12v cabin battery is kept constantly tended and never used for cranking, it also lasts many years longer.
So yes, still some maintenance, but you save a ton of time and money long term.
Ehh, this isn't necessarily true for most EVs at this point, at least from my experience. Since they don't have to put up with cranking loads, they tend to be far smaller than one in an ICE. This means that all the "idle" stuff that's running when the HV contactors aren't closed and the DC-DC charging circuit isn't active drains the battery much more quickly, and draining them below ~70% is what starts to degrade them rapidly.
I've personally never had an 12v battery in an EV last more than about 5 years, while I've had batteries in my ICE cars do double that before they showed any signs of trouble.
One other slight issue I've noticed is that a marginal 12v battery makes the car absolutely lose its shit. I can't even tell you the number of people I've seen on forums who think their car completely shit the bed due to the number of faults and such it'll report, even though it's still driving somewhat normally.
My 12v has a 10 year warranty, so if it did die after five years at least it would be free to replace.
I always turn the car on to use the accessories since 'idling' doesn't really use any extra power, keeps the battery tended, and lets me use the AC/heater.
There's no combustion engine and gearbox, so no oil :)
Most of the complexity in a combustion vehicle is in the engine and transmission, both things that an EV hasn't got. A lot of mechanical compromises are made to allow converting gasoline explosions into forward momentum.
An EV will still require brakes and tires, and eventually it'll need replacement suspension components and probably wheel bearings just the same as any other car. And at some point it will surely need a coolant flush if the battery pack is liquid cooled, which it probably is.
But it will not require engine oil changes, air filter replacements, spark plugs, transmission flushes, a replacement clutch, or transmission rebuild; nor will it ever need a belt replacement, pulleys, tensioners, or idlers; nor a timing belt replacement, emissions system repairs, and thieves will never steal its catalytic converter.
An EV will, however, eventually require a battery pack replacement. Which is guaranteed not to be cheap.
Rotate/change the tires about as often as you normally would. That's just about it. They have far less moving parts that get far less hot and don't have tiny explosions in them almost ever.
Are you not including the cost of electricity into your estimate? It is cheaper then gas manly because it is not taxed out the wazoo yet.
I happen to live next to a free charger provided by the state, and not far from a free fast charger provided by the dealership, so it's essentially free for me.
Electricity here usually costs about $0.12 per kwh, which can charge the car for 4-5 miles of range. That's $0.84 to go 28 miles.
Most people charge at home just by plugging the car into an outlet, so I have no idea how that would be taxed. With EVs we pay the road tax during vehicle registration, which is an extra $100 each year.
My utility company alleges that they charge a different -- and higher, no surprise -- rate for EV charging. I concur that I have absolutely no idea how they would know, unless you were dumb enough to volunteer to them that's what you were doing and allowed them to install the charger themselves with its own attached meter. Especially if you're using an L1 charger, plugging in your car would be indistinguishable from any other constant load like a heater.
Which is why automakers and big oil have fought so hard against bringing down the cost of EVs.
and they're winning. the bonkers high tariffs on brand new $10k EV'S have guaranteed that americans and western europeans will never get affordable EV's and only the rich will have them.
they already cost $10k outside the united states so the price is already beyond competitive; the real barrier to adoption will be once/if the united states removes the 100% tariff they've placed on chinese ev's.
Same
fuck you NYT, define affordable... Nope, that's not affordable.
They implicity, but clearly, define it: the same price as gasoline cars.
Also, Become != Are. It even notes, right in the blurb there, that they're getting there, not that they are there.
i had the same thought and i'm also thinking that i'm going to keep my 15 year old car until it dies in the hopes that i can get those brand new $10k ev's that people outside the united states can get right now.
Stuff like this is starting to make its way into automotive youtubers feeds now. I just saw one where he picked up a Model S P85D for like $10k or something crazy because it was "insurance totaled". The issue was they'd let the battery die in the lot and some idiots didn't think to charge it.
But think about the american car makers that produce a lot of their stuff abroad anyways! Who's going to stuff their pockets?? God forbid you get cheap chinese EVs!
those will start at ~$25,000.00 if they get sold in the USA.
due to the bonkers high tariffs.
i hope they start building them in mexico.
3rd sentence?
I'll share the rest because the paywall:
Idk, you can get a used Tesla for like $25k now.
I don't want a used Tesla, though.
Be careful with those, chances are it's an old fleet vehicle and those are not always the most well taken care of.
you can buy a brand new one for $10k outside the united states
Over 20k used, meanwhile China's getting literally half the price new. But dems and republicans have joined hands in stopping this boon for the climate.
Yeah when you use literal slaves instead of union labour, costs are down. I'm not willing to trade my humanity to save a few dollars and a debatable improvement to the climate disaster (I doubt the manufacture and extraction practices in China are anything approaching clean).
IMO this is a rare case of Washington doing the right thing.
Edit For the benefit of anyone at risk of being fooled by authoritarian propaganda, there is a plethora of evidence of slave labour used throughout the Chinese economy, from uyghur muslims to foxcons indentured workers. It's prevelent through the supply chain for many, many industries, and that alone warrants discentives on imports until such time as these practices end.
To suggest that individual businesses, who are built within this system, may be somehow operating outside of it is clearly absurd, however it's simply not possible for a layman to unpack and debate the supply chains and business practices hidden behind the bamboo curtain.
The discourse below is an example of how bad faith arguments can create doubt, by employing strawman arguments and ignoring actual points raised to create the appearance of being reasonable by hiding behind "citation needed" type arguments. If you read through it, you'll see that the propagandist doesn't once engage in anything I've actually said - this is intentional, they do not want to be in a position where any claim they make can be contested, nor do they actually want to directly contest any claim I've made. Rather they only want to sow doubt in what I'm saying, which takes considerably more effort to discredit than any actual claim.
Need a source for these EV factories using slave labor.
And by all means lets debate on the climate impact of these vehicles, what parts are you saying are a problem? While Americas been manufacturing more and more combustion trucks and SUVs, China has been leaving us in the green tech dust, ramping up renewable energy and EV production.
Google forced labour in China yourself, it isn't my responsibility to provide resources to those choosing wilful ignorance or living under a rock when there's masses of well documented human rights violations and masses of evidence documenting appallingly negligent mining and manufacturing practices.
Yes, its your claim its your responsibility. Show me the forced labour at the BYD facilities producing the $11k Seagull im talking about. Show me their negligent manufacturing practices.
Piss off, tankie
Weird how tankies and anti-semites use the same tricks to push their agenda.
Why should anyone believe claims with a refusal to back them up?
You strawmanned about the BYD factory, which I never mentioned, clearly you're engaging in bad faith. The use of ughur slave labour throughout the economy, or indentured workers at places like foxcon is better documented than the recent conviction of Donald Trump. I have no more reason to cite sources for this than a comment referencing the earth being round or Ukraine being at war.
The only possible way to be ignorant of these facts is by choice. I don't care if people who choose ignorance refute my claims, no evidence I could provide would change that anyway and again, it isn't my responsibility to deprogram anyone.
I am certainly not making scientific claims in an academic paper or publishing breaking news with an obligation to cite sources, I'm providing commentary on that which has already been well documented and in doing so, insinuating (very different from claiming, which you seem to have missed) that the Chinese state supports the use of what is, effectively, slave labour.
I mentioned it. BYD is by far Chinas most successful EV manufacturer, and when i mentioned China having new EVs for literally half the price of our used ones, im talking about their 11k Seagull. That is what we are talking about, thats what these tariffs are preventing from coming here. So these accusations of slave labor have to apply to them, or youre gonna need another argument for why they shouldnt be allowed to sell here. Its no strawman, its no metaphor.
The Chinese cars that are half price don't include any safety features, have a theoretical top speed of 80 mph, and a battery range of 100 miles. Those ones would never make it to the US even without tariffs.
Where in America can you legally drive over 80mph?
Texas, actually. Some sections of highway are 85 mph.
yeah, but then you'd have to live in texas. lol
i tried it for 5 years and no thank you!
Big state need big speed for small travel.
An advertised top speed of 80 means that, assuming you have ideal road conditions, tire conditions, are on a flat road, have no wind, and a long distance to get up to speed, you will hover at 78. There are plenty of places with a 65 mph speed limit, wind, and a big hill. Besides, most people will occasionally exceed the speed limit to "overtake traffic".
Parts of California. I believe I-5 has an 85mph speed limit in the big empty bits.
(1) My shitbox 2006 Honda can go up to 120mph stock. They engineer cars to go twice their typical operating speed so the mechanical parts are not overstressed during normal operation. Imagine if you were trying to pass on the highway at 80 and your car literally tore itself apart.
(2) South Dakota
Slow the hell down
Sounds perfect for my needs.
I had an s10 like that.
Yes it includes safety features, and 80 is plenty
I realize this isn't why you mentioned the range of those vehicles, but I like to point out where I can that only a single digit percentage of all driven trips are more than fifty miles.
More to the point of the thread, if people could get over this reason for not buying electric, there could be much cheaper options by halving the battery capacities in these vehicles. Of course that would mean the manufacturers would have to make them, which seems unlikely. Worthwhile to point out though I think.
I am not saying it is right, but many people online demand that their EV be able to go much more than 200 miles/charge. I am not sure if that is a majority opinion or just a very vocal minority.
Probably because most people have occasional trips of >150 miles and they don't want to have to work out alternative transportation for those trips
Chinese EVs subsidized with prison labor and CCP funds to undercut the market and stagnate long-term innovation, what a boon to humanity!
Those damn Chinese prisoners working in advanced technological factories.
China investing in their EV companies is a good thing. Undercut the absolute fuck out of this overpriced gas guzzling SUV market.
Yes but compared to gas cars that's no difference
But can they make them much much bigger? I hope so! It worked for ICE cars right? Just make them as big as a house and watch every day as they park north, south, east and west bound on the various freeways for the night.
Canionero!
I mean, the Kia EV9 seems pretty big. But I think you mean Ford Excursion big.... and man.... GM has a hummer of a truck for you. Also, no one is buying it.
The fact that VW's ID Buzz doesn't come with a Westfalia trim is a travesty.
They're already fucking huge. Every EV in the US is an SUV or pickup. You want a small electric commuter in 2024, your only option is an ebike.
Most of those 'SUVs' are what we used to would call 'station wagon' or 'compact wagon'.
Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Mach-E, Model 3, Lyriq, and Blazer EV I would say aren't particularly 'big' but all are 'SUV'. You have Model 3 which is not even 'technically' an SUV. You also have the Leaf, the Niro EV, the Mini Cooper SE, which are all relatively smaller.
The models that are typical 'large' SUVs are relatively few. The EV9, the Rivian, maybe the Model X are the ones off the top of my head that are "Ford Explorer" big or larger. Yes the pickup trucks are blighted by the same "cosplay as a big rig" design language inflicted on the ICE pickups, except for CyberTruck which somehow managed to be even worse.
Ioniq would make my two car garage a one car garage.
Maybe these cars don't classify as SUVs by some metric, but they are definitely not small. Every vehicle in the US has gotten bigger in the last decade and EVs are no exception.
Yeah, because now they have to double as house if you lose your job
The Leaf is a reasonable size, the Ioniq 6 as well I think.
I drive a Leaf. I wish it was much smaller.
Well, there is the mini Cooper, but if you are considering the leaf a big SUV, that's hardly "big American" and would fit in with most four door vehicles for decades globally, certainly anything with four doors that could pass collision and pedestrian safety standards today.. to get smaller you have to go down to the little two door things, and for most people those are too impractical as a daily driver.
When I want smaller than my ⚡🚗🍃 Leaf, I ride my ⚡🏍️ Metacycle or my ⚡🛵 niu N-GT.
Seriously, I just want an EV Sportscar. Give me something Z car sized, RWD and no extras.
EV Miata please. With 4 wheel drive and a power hard top convertible.
I would love this so much.... with the RF body cuz I think it looks sexier. Too bad Mazda is basically just anti-ev or rebadging other people's hybrid platforms.
The closest thing to that is the Ioniq 5 N, which has a mode that simulates shifting and pipes vroom vroom noises through the speakers to simulate revs.
It's honestly the only electric that's appealing to me, mainly because of the shifting and the vroom vroom. And even then it's too big.
Agreed on all points.... I'm glad the 5N exists, but it's not what I want.
The MG cyberster seems promising. I'm drivng the MG4 and I rely like the car.
Sure... great... I'm in the states though, so... 🤷
RWD is silly on an EV. You can have four motors, one for each wheel, which will give you torque vectoring and other features. Trust me, additional Gs in turns are way more fun than skids.
Sports cars are silly. I know what I want. And it's a overpowered RWD sports car.
EDIT to add stuff... I already have an AWD ev, and a FWD EV. The FWD is terrible, not only does the high torque overpower the low rolling resistance tires, but.... just like an F1 car is crazy over powered, I want appropriate digital nannies, fat tires and all the stuff I had with my previous sports cars and motorcycles.
Regular AWD is not the same as EV AWD with independent motors. Four motors also allow you to turn your car into either RWD or FWD with a press of a button, but you'll have half the power ofc.
Kia ev6 gt. Seriously, go drive one. And even better than rwd, it's AWD (if you actually care about performance more than burnouts)
I have, and the Ioniq 5 N.... they are great.... I'm glad they exist, but not what I want.
EDIT: My friend has a bright red Model S plaid, and it was one of the most insane things I've ever driven. But being honest with you, The Model 3 Performance was more fun. Which is how I got to this point. Give me a 2-door, rwd over powered sports car. Please and thank you.
Literally what I'm waiting for. I live alone, I have a 5km commute with crappy public transport. Too far to walk, bike in winter sucks, so some closed space for one or two people that can transport a bit of groceries is the largest I want. Smart sized, but affordable please.
Excellent news! Leaf, Bolt, 500e, Cooper SE
Anything that exists is ridiculously expensive. 20k+ for the cheapest option. Last I checked at least.
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/elektroauto/kleinwagen-marktuebersicht/ 22k+ even.
Polestar 2, Tesla Model 3, and Ioniq 6 are all sedans.
Im legit waiting for the Renault Master electric van for my next campervan build project.
Good, they should be far cheaper than gasoline cars. America is losing to China when it comes to EVs, and many other things.
China is the largest car market in the world. Can you image how fucked we would all be if Chinese bureaucrats were as fossil fuel pilled as the assholes running DC?
America isn't losing to China. America is losing to climate change.
...and I couldn't be happier about it. The age of American/European imperialism is coming to an end after centuries of suffering imposed on poorer nations. Not that I have high hopes for China or anything, but it's HARD to do worse than US or Western Europe...
If you think its hard to do worse, you haven been paying attention to China
Yeah I mean china is a shithole country but for some reason there is a narrative on Lemmy that it is this great place while in reality it barely holds together as this silver taped weird capitalistic corrupted monster
There is a reason Chinese gov is so shy about Taiwan and all the happenings Russia vs eu because they know damn well they are holding stability barely together and one wrong move would plunge it into chaos. They can’t afford ANY conflict. It all barely functions as it is due to aggressive capitalism and corruption
I know, their personal space station, Tiengong, is still only a third of the size of the one we share with other countries. The poor thing can barely manage a trade surplus of 230 billion with the US. And look who they count on for innovation in green energy… china, of all countries!
Ok, American exceptionalist. The legacy of ashes of the US is so far from whatever admittedly bad policy China has had, that even comparing both is ridiculous. In the future, the US will be gazed upon the same way we gaze upon nazi Germany right now. More than a million deaths and millions of lives ruined in the inhumane bombings of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea, hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of lives ruined from outright invasion of countries such as Iraq, supporting radical terrorist guerrillas all over the world such as in Afghanistan or Libya, destabilizing and organising coups against democratically elected leaders in countries like Chile (Allende) and Iran (Mosaddegh), banana republics in central America such as in Guatemala, support of fascist dictatorships like that of Pinochet or of Franco, constant militarism and refusing to lower military expenditure in the face of nuclear war against the USSR, sending nuclear missiles to Turkey and refusing to act upon even unilateral attempts during the Gorbachyov era to cool down the cold war... The list is absolutely ENDLESS, I haven't even mentioned a quarter of all the examples that come to mind. China simply doesn't have that history. Believing that the US isn't doing worse than China means you're absolutely blind to US and western European imperialism (I could bring equal lists of humanitarian crises started by UK, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium).
Do you think we Americans are ok with that? Life in this country is complicated in its own ways.
I know it's not the fault of American citizens, hence I didn't accuse them. Talking about American imperialism isn't saying "American citizens suck", I'm European myself and I'm fully aware of the actions of my government and the EU. The fact that I'm looking forwards to the end of western imperialism doesn't mean I wish any evil on the citizens of the west since they're not to blame for this system. I'm just saying it's hard to beat US and European imperialism in being evil.
I appreciate the clarification.
We'll do the best we can against an extremely well funded and entrenched oligarchy, controlling what we read/see/hear as effectively as possible. Places like Lemmy are sort of a weakness in their systems.
We Americans also have ourselves to look at, as animals it is hard to invite change when our basic needs are mostly met, e.g. our toilets work and we can buy food. We can do better, but it's a bit like climbing the walls of the maze vs running around within.
Again, I don't blame the general populace. What you say of "Americans have ourselves to look at", it's not that easy. These things don't happen in a vacuum, the context of Americans and Europeans (and Canadians and Aussies and even Russians) not looking inwards and realising imperialism, isn't a consequence of lack of self-awareness that these countries have and the rest don't. It's just a consequence of the system we happen to live in, which propagandizes certain points of view, talking points, and controls media to serve the interests of capital. It's hardly useful IMO to blame the majority for issues that could be solved "simply" by changing the ownership structure of media outlets, for example.
Group buy-in is generally a foundational requirement for future changes..
Idk what you mean by "group buy-in", sorry, maybe it's an idiom I'm not picking, I'm not a native speaker.
If you mean that people generally should believe in the change for the change to happen, then yes, I agree that's a great starting point. That's why we leftists organise, and try to create resilient communities that care for those around us, in order to make people have better lives and be more aware of the oppression they're suffering, and when the material conditions are appropriate, to be there.
Sorry about that. You correctly guessed the right meaning of the word.
Let's keep moving, we'll all do better so long as we can ignore the people trying to slow us down. Best of luck to you in your corner of the world.
This is always the problem: extremists want to end something but have no idea what will replace what they want to eradicate. It won't become better by itself. People take the good things we have for granted, focus their attention on the bad things without trying to solve them, and think that it'll somehow become better if we destroy everything. It won't. It's not hard to do worse than we're doing right now; it's incredibly easy. What is truly hard is doing better. That's why extremists are focused on destruction and not improvement.
Yeah, America is undermining it's own hegemony since 2016 and what do you know? The threat of violence is rising.
Russia invaded Ukraine, China is threatening Taiwan, Ethiopia is threatening Eritrea, Venezuela is threatening Guyana. A world where large nations can bully, invade, and occupy small nations unopposed is not really better than the Pax Americana.
Exactly. People jump into discussions about how bad our world is, but they don't seem to know how bad it was 100, 200, or 300 years ago. And then they offer communism as the solution - the same communism that resulted in bloodshed everywhere it has been applied. It's sad to see people turn to solutions that are proven to be bad due to a lack of education and ignorance, instead of working on something that could really help. Such a waste of effort.
God forbid we criticise the system for its failures.
Yeah, mate, it's so hard not murdering millions of people in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Iraq. They just die by themselves when the bombs happen to drop on them, so unfortunate.
Saying that things are difficult is actually an excuse for inaction and lukewarm reformism, as has been shown over the past decades with the Palestine occupation by Israel for example. The whole "it's so difficult" framework exposed in western media led to public opinion not being swayed one way or the other. Now, with the advent of social media and the access to international media of all ideologies, people clearly see there's a settler genocidal state bombing another. It's easy: stop the fucking bombings, and stop the settling, and stop the blockade on Gaza. It's not hard not bombing people, it actually costs a lot of money.
If you want constructive solutions I'll give you constructive solutions. Abolish unemployment by creating public employment. Abolish exploitation of the working classes by expropriating the means of production. Abolish homelessness and solve the housing crisis by building prefab housing on a nationwide scale. Stop bombing developing countries. All things I'm saying have been achieved by poorer nations 50+ years ago, it can be done and it's absolutely realistic.
Now, what do you propose?
Yes.
Most Americans are perfectly fine with it as long as their cell phone works and there's food on the table.
The number of us that are horrified by what America's done to get where it is is vanishingly small.
Almost half of this country is about to vote for a racist tyrannical idiot because he says the quiet part loud. A sizable number of people aren't committed to voting against the Cheeto tyrant. And a number of the people that are committed to voting against him aren't all that upset about the atrocities committed in their name, for shit as stupid as access to fucking tropical fruit.
I don't agree.
Unfortunately, you're a perfect example of the success of messaging being broadcast directly to deflate the sense of power and ability we all have, in spite of the walls confining us for tropical fruit.
Follow your thoughts to their conclusion, as designed: we've broken too much, and they're too powerful, there's nothing we can do.
It's not true.
Sadly your vague platitudes disagree with reality and don't directly respond to anything I said.
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Are they all crossovers or trucks with a massive touchscreen and spyware?
Some US cars have EULAs that include you if you walk past the car.
You know in 2021 I thought that the MSM was deliberately ignoring the issues with EVs and promoting overly rosy timelines as part of a political agenda.
After seeing the massive amount of FUD they published about EVs over the past year, I think they are just bad at their jobs.
It feels like the media covers EVs based on vibes versus doing actual research. As a result they've consistently publish articles that are either borderline nonsense hopium or complete doomerism.
IMO I still think hybrids will be instrumental tech over the next decade. Those 300 mile EVs often get much worse range in weather conditions that are common in many parts of the country. It's also simply going to take considerable time for fast charging infrastructure to become ubiquitous enough to truly address range anxiety.
They write articles for people worried about 300 miles ranges who drive 40 miles a day the vast, vast majority of days.
Is it any wonder the coverage is awful?
How frequently would someone need to make a 200+ round trip in lousy weather that cuts into the range for them to have a valid reason? Once a month? Every two weeks?
What about people that go to temote areas that don't even have gas stations? How often do they need to go?
I have a car that I mostly use for just trips around town. But once or sometimes twice a year, I go on a thousand-kilometer-or-so trip to visit some relatives. Assuming for whatever reason that this wouldn't work with an EV, you can say "well that's one trip a year you won't be able to go on."
But that trip is important to me. It'd be a huge negative not being able to do that, or a really big expense to rent a car capable of the trip. I wouldn't switch exclusively to an EV if it wasn't able to make that trip, because I have a car that can do it right now.
It's a real concern.
More realistically, you should be instead told "well, that's one trip you'll be making in a rental ICE car instead".
You'd still come out on top overall, I'm pretty sure.
Well I'm not sure and I'm the one with the wallet, so I'm staying with my existing car.
Besides, another thing that helps the environment is not buying new cars when one doesn't need to.
In terms of CO2 emissions, getting as many ICE vehicles of the road as possible is best. Depending on your electrical power source, an EV can beat out an ICE within 30k km. On the shittier end, if your power comes from coal, it is closer to 125k km.
You could even argue for the rental when there’s not an EV in the mix. Maybe I have an older car where reliability is questionable. I’m more willing to risk a breakdown at home where I have options and resources, than at a distant destination or where it affects travel plans. Maybe I have an econobox for cheap local transport, but comfort is more important when looking at a long drive. Maybe I have good reason to drive a Pickup locally, but that would not be good for a trip.
Doubt it. Renting a car is a fucking rip off.
The only time that trip is going to be an issue is if you are going 250-300miles away from an interstate. Even then, a few pigtails and you can charge at any campground or RV park nationwide. Charging is a lot less of an issue than the media wants you to believe. I’ve been traveling around the country in an ev without problems for 30k miles. Pull up a map of just Tesla Superchargers and you’ll see a huge amount of roadtrip coverage… and that isn’t bringing in all of the other manufacturers charging networks or the rv/campground charging possibilities.
I spend 100% of the trip more than 300 miles away from an interstate. I'm Canadian.
Charging duration is also an issue. The annual trip generally takes me 12-13 hours. So if you add significant charging time that pushes it long enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable doing the whole trip in one day any more.
Charging duration at fast chargers is not that much of an issue for the most part. You'll be able to drive for for hours and you will likely want to stop for a bit anyway.
The lack of chargers where you would be is definitely an issue though. Renting an ICE would make sense then and you would almost certainly save money overall with that combo. In my area, an EV would save $1000-2000 USD for fuel costs each year (small hybrid on the low range and a crossover on the higher end). Given gas prices in Canada, I would have to imagine the savings are even higher for you.
One argument is that for once a year it’s actually cheaper to rent than to overbuy.
Maybe, but the percentage of people who actually need that is vanishingly small. There will be outliers, it will take years for full adoption, and the technology is changing rapidly, but I’m still reading your description as: over 99% of people could be served by an EV
for a once a year trip I would just rent. Same reason why you don't need to buy a truck because just in case you need to move, you jsut rent a U-haul for that occasion.
I get what you're saying but yeah it is surprising. It would be one thing if their coverage was bad as in the sense the author doesn't do legwork or add anything of value when compared to some YouTuber. However their coverage feels like it's written by someone who doesn't particularly like cars and doesn't really follow this stuff outside of when their editor assigns it to them.
People waaaay overestimate how much they drive. The average person drives about 30 miles per day. 99.5% of trips are under 100 miles. Cold weather can drop the range by about 25%. That is still perfectly fine for 99.5% of trips. You know what country also has pretty cold weather? Norway. They also happen to be the country with the highest percentage of EVs sold.
Fast charging is only needed for the extremely rare occasion that you are traveling over 250 miles. Heck, even a level 1 charger is fine for the majority of people most of the time. And the fast charge network is built out pretty decently already so that you are almost certainly within range of one.
There are absolutely some issues with EVs though. It certainly is not all sunshine and rainbows. While a level 1 charger is perfectly fine for most people, many do not even have that. Most apartment buildings do not have outlets you can use in your parking spot. That is a pretty large chunk of the population that would have to rely on fast chargers. That is a lot pricier.
And while you may be within range of a fast charger, you might not be by one that works. A good third of Electrify America's don't work. Some that do, do not give you the full speed.
Charging speed still does suck for road trips. Sure, an Ioniq can charge to 80% within 20 minutes but that is with a station that can push 350 kW which are pretty damn rare.
Companies also seem to want to make EVs futuristic looking with zero knobs and also lock you into their ecosystem to harvest your data. They claim it is to help you more accurately calculate range and to be able to find a charger. That's horseshit. Just because something is battery powered does not mean it needs that shit. It would be one thing if they had competent software engineers but they largely don't.
I’ve had a used ev for 4 years and have about 110k miles on the battery. I drove for years in Houston, with 110 degree summers and recently drove a season in Winter Park in the -10 to 0 degree weather for the season and didn’t have any issues with range or charging. You do notice minor differences, but nothing is a surprise and nothing is unmanageable. There is a lot more FUD out there than is warranted from actual performance.
Our infrastructure also needs upgrades to support electric vehicles. For example, you literally can't get one unless you have a garage or driveway, which many people- especially those who don't have the luxury of buying a house, don't have. If your only option is dealing with street parking good luck.
I have a friend in exactly this situation. He just goes to a nearby supercharger every week. It’s not that unreasonable
Not really a requirement to charge at home, many cities have fast chargers at grocery stores so you can charge while you shop. This still needs to be expanded yes, but there are alternatives to home charging. It’s still the best and most convenient option if you have the option though.
I have chargers at work. If I wanted do fight my way through the line, I could completely charge for free while working. Hopefully more companies offer that
While I buy the logic of a hybrid, I think they should have been instrumental tech over the last decade. Where were all these legacy manufacturers when Toyota had proven technology with high sales? Legacy manufacturers were regressive then, and are regressive now that EVs are ready to take over
I blame a lot of that on stock manipulation hype.
There are a huge number of aspired investigative journalists who weren't good enough, and ended up writing niche interest pieces for hobbyist publications they don't actually care much about. This was the reason there was such a commotion over game's journalism around 2015, but the same problems exist elsewhere too.
I agree, but with a small caveat. I think that a lot of 2010s bloggers were wannabe authors who only got into journalism because it was a lot easier to break into blogging versus literature in that era.
I'm extremely bullish on Edison Motors diesel-electric hybrid truck conversions
So am I. But that is a niche application. Even they half admit it's not suitable for 'common use' And it remains to be seen if they can pull it off.
I'm far more a fan of their right to repair and using common everyday off the shelf parts to make those repairs easier and cheaper.
There is currently a bizarre anomaly in the market due to several massive rental car companies dumping their rolling stock. The tech isn't yet there and there are a lot of interesting issues with depreciation.
What about electric car technology "isn't yet there?"
My main two concerns are battery replacement (and affordability of replacements including a third party market for compatible parts) and battery restoration/recovery. Alternatively, if we could massively increase battery life span (not a single charge - but how many charge/discharge cycles they can survive) that might also allay my fears - but I think the first one is better.
You want 'resilience'.
Added to my lexicon!
Why do you think the cyclic life of current or 10 year old batteries is not already good enough? Do you know how often they fail? How much they degrade after 10 years?
The US DoE puts EV battery half-life at 8-12 years for most current vehicles. That's insanely short compared to ICE.
Do you have the link for that? Many old Model S' are still getting well over 50% of their range; closer to 85-90%. The only way I could see that being is if a large portion of the batteries in the sample were Nissan Leafs which were air cooled and degraded horribly in extreme heat or extreme cold.
Yeah, I can't do that. As little as I drive, they would last longer, but still. I'll be retired or close enough in 12-years, won't be able to afford a fresh battery. My ICE convertible and truck are 02 and 04 models and run fine.
Knowing there's a hard limit on usage, with a wildly expensive repair at the end, that's tough to swallow. I can keep my 04 F150 running forever. (For certain values of forever.)
It's not a hard limit, it's a variable capacity reduction over a decade that estimates a maximum 50% reduction in range, similar to the lost efficiency of an ICE engine as the tubes , pipes and cases erode.
You add in the far lower fuel/repair/ maintenance costs and that optional new battery is costing you less than you're paying in gasoline, oil changes or other basic and common maintenance.
I drove Camry for 15 years with minimal repairs and after 180k miles I was still getting roughly the same mpg and range as when it was new. It was still going fine when I got rid of it becuae our vehicle needs changed, but even if it hadn't a complete engine rebuild at 300k (if needed) would only be a few thousand dollars or less.
Working down to half the range over a decade and then needing a very expensive repalacement battery is not comparable in any way. I really hope the battery tech keeps improving.
It's comparable in that optional battery maintenance is currently the same price as the average cost of repairs you made on your Camry plus the cost of gas for a decade.
Even if battery tech weren't simultaneously improving and getting cheaper every couple of months, ev costs are already at least comparable with ICEs.
As battery tech improves and efficiency rises, the price is going to keep getting cheaper.
I wasn't talking about cost, I was talking about the ability to travel a comparable range on a charge. Does battery maintenance keep it at 95% of the original range at 15 years?
Less maintenance and cheaper charging is actually a selling point for electric cars, and I am not disagreeing with that. But a used 15 year old car that has a far lower range than new and will most likely need a new expensive battery replacment within a few years is not the same as a 15 year old car that performs like new and won't need a massive repair in the near future.
No more than ICEs stay at 95% of the original range at 15 years.
Your argument is based on accepting a hypothetical best case scenario for a random ICE to the worst case scenario for a random EV.
"A used 15-year-old ICE car with a cracked head gasket isn't the same compared to an electric car that's managed to retain near its full capacity".
No, of course it isn't.
EVs are already cheaper over time, are already comparable at MSRP, and their range and efficiency isn't static like ICE cars.
Range anxiety is real, but it boils down to anxiety; range is still there and only improving.
Shoot, the aptera is going to recharge passively from solar 40 miles a day, and they have thousand mile ranges on a charge.
In fuel costs alone, an EV owner is saving about $1,000 a year.
After a decade, you can get that extra 20% capacity back with a new battery for cheaper than you would have been spending on your ICE car that cannot be refurbished in the same way.
Just adds up.
Based on my last two cars apparently being hypothetical best case scenarios, sure.
I look forward to electric cars range continuing to improve, but as long as I live somewhere that range actually matters half of the year I'll take the current ranges as they work in reality into consideration.
I’ve got 112k miles on my Tesla and still get over 250miles on a full charge, and that’s not running it to empty… just as far as I push it on a road trip. I could probably make it 275-285 easy. Never had a problem with range and have had minimal maintenance costs compared to all of the ICE vehicles I drove over 20years I drove ‘em.
Congratulations!
Thanks! It’s been great since I left the ICE world. I can only hope to help others take the leap!
How long should a battery last compared to an ice engine… and how much should it cost to replace? If you actually look into the statistics, battery packs (at least on Teslas) last longer than ICE motors by a factor of 2 to 5. And their replacement costs are currently around 2x, but will come down over time. Regardless, I’d never replace a battery pack, just like I’d never replace an ICE motor.
If you run the numbers down to a per mile cost, EVs… especially Teslas… outlast and are significantly cheaper to operate than any ICE vehicle on the market. There is a huge amount of disinformation out there around EVs.
That’s not to say everyone can afford to spend the money (or get the loan) to go electric up front… but if you can manage it, it will pay off in the long run. I’ll never buy another ICE vehicle as long as I live. It‘d feel like I’m flushing money down the toilet.
I’ve always driven gasoline vehicles until repairs are more expensive than replacement, which has meant 10-15 years. At that point they’re worth almost nothing, which also means I don’t need to get too worked up about getting a good deal.
Average battery life span used to be shorter due to early leaf’s not having active cooling
I hope EVs are similar, and read stories online about Tesla batteries lasting 12-15 years. Assuming that pans out, EVs are already no different from gasoline vehicles.
I’ll let you know in 15 years
So tired of hearing about battery replacement as if having a $10,000 thing that breaks in your car after 10 years is somehow unique to EVs. Ask Chrysler owners how many transmissions they've put in their car, or Subaru owners how many engines they've put in theirs. I bet the average battery pack is lasting far longer than either of those.
What issues with depreciation? Can you list actual models and prices to back your claim because it seems like most people are bitching about the high prices of EVs.
I'm a BEV advocate, but even this is an easy one. In 2022 a Tesla Model 3 LR cost $52k while you can get the exact same car new today for $47k. This is even just MSRP. That $47k car is even $7500 cheaper for most people.
Tesla Model Y LR from the same year, 2022, is even more dramatic. It was $67k and now costs $49k.
I don't really see this as a bad thing if we want people with lower incomes to get off ICE cars, although I can see how people who paid those prices would be annoyed. Expecting cars to hold their value or depreciate slowly seems overly optimistic in general, as they are inherently depreciating assets and should never be seen as investments.
That's not depreciation that's just a response to the highest interest rates we've seen in 20+ years and dwindling sales numbers.
This is no different than the monthly sales we used to see on every car prior to COVID but this was somewhat obscured by the nature of the dealership model and having to haggle on the actual price of the car.
Of course its depreciation. Its the very definition of depreciation. An asset was worth more at a point in the past than it is today. The reason for the value loss is irrelevant.
The definition of depreciation is:
The MSRP going down isn't depreciation as you're referring to a brand new item that you haven't even purchased and hasn't been used.
Prices shot way up during COVID and now they're coming back to reality in response to higher interest rates and slowing sales across the entire automotive market, not just with EVs. Housing prices have come down too but again that doesn't mean depreciation, it's just a response to interest rates being 2-3x higher than they were just a couple of years ago and sale prices adjusting accordingly (you're still paying more overall with interest).
The context here is that "people are concerned about depreciation," but why would people be concerned that they're able to buy these cars new at a slightly cheaper price to begin with? Most people prefer to pay as little as possible for things, which is the whole point of companies having a sale on their products.
Look at the first half of that sentence. Thats the same idea I posted with my definition:
" Its the very definition of depreciation. An asset was worth more at a point in the past than it is today."
You're getting hung up on the "wear and tear" thing because that's a regular way that cars lose value over time, but its not the only way. A Picasso painting continues to slowly deteriorate over time but its value continues to go up because there is a market for people wanting his paintings. This would be an "appreciated asset" even though it still gets wear and tear.
Because many people buy cars with the expectation of only owning them for a couple of years and then selling them for something newer. If the value of their EV dropped by 50% in two years of ownership instead of dropping perhaps 20% of specific ICE cars, the they would be concerned about the depreciation. Even people that don't sell so quickly want an asset that retains its value in case it gets totaled (and they need to buy a new replacement) or in case they need to sell it for emergency liquidity.
Okay assuming we do go with your definition, the 2019 Model 3 LR was $36,000, meaning they've appreciated by $11,000 over the last 5 years. Once again this disproves your point.
The 2022 numbers you picked were the absolute peak of COVID era pricing, but they're still selling for more than they used to, meaning they aren't depreciating at all.
I'm not sure where you're getting $36k for the price of a 2019 Model 3 LR (in 2019). This link seems to show it at $43k, but the real price is irrelevant to your point, so I'll agree with your $36k for this discussion.
If you can find someone that will give you $47k for your 2019 Model 3 LR, then yes. The market value of an asset isn't determined by guidebooks, but by what someone will give you for it if you're selling it, or what you have to pay for it to buy it for yourself.
I have a 2022 Model 3 LR. I have zero faith that today anyone would give me what I paid for it even if it had zero miles on it. Why would they when they could buy the 2024 for less money? What I paid for my car is irrelevant to what it will sell for today.
If you're looking at whether your asset appreciated or depreciated, there are only two numbers that matter:
If someone will pay you more than you paid, that asset appreciated. If the best you can do is someone paying less than you paid for it, that asset depreciated. That's the literal definition of appreciation and depreciation.
Dude, you're all over the place. You're now comparing used car prices to new car prices when previously you were comparing new car prices from prior years to new car prices from today.
If I go out and buy a 2024 Model 3 LR for $47k, how much depreciation have I incurred? Previously you said it's at least a few thousand dollars because they cost more in 2022, but now you're saying it only matters what today's purchase price is compared to what I could sell it for used. You can't have it both ways.
I am all over the place because I'm trying to show you what matters is where you come from what you paid for it versus how much you can sell that item right now to determine if its appreciating or depreciating.
Slightly more than $7500, as that is the amount of the tax credit. Any buyer that is in the market for a 2024 Model 3 LR has the choice to buy it directly from Tesla for the $47k with all of the trust and benefits (possibly preferential pricing on financing). So you'll likely have to discount yours by a couple thousand for someone to take the risk you didn't do something to the car in the short time you've owned it.
So my estimated final answer to your scenario is: Your 2024 Model 3 LR is now worth 37,500.
I'm not seeing where I said that. Can you link/quote my words where you're seeing that?
Okay I see, you're getting stuck on a minor point for this part.
In economics there's a concept call substitution. Lets say you have THE ONLY Model 3 LR ever made. Lets also assume the tax credit never existed because that just makes this even more complicated (and doesn't change the outcome). If someone wants a Model 3 LR they have no choice but to buy it from you. If they only wanted a Model 3 LR, and no other car would suit them, then there would be zero substitution options open to them. They'd have to pay you what you're asking regardless of how high or low that price was.
However with Tesla Model 3 LR there are lots of options for substitution. If they simply wanted a Tesla, and you had the only Tesla Model 3 LR ever made, they would laugh at you if you asked for the $52k you paid in 2022. They would happily buy a 2024 Model Y for less money directly from Tesla. So worse for you in this scenario, you don't have the only Tesla Model 3 LR ever made, so if your theoretical buyer wanted a Tesla Model 3 LR, they could put your 2022 (assuming yours had zero miles) where you're wanting to get your full $52k back next to a 2024 which only costs $47k from Tesla.
The buyer will probably choose the 2024 for $5k less than your 2022. They see no value in paying an extra $5k for your 2022 because they are substituting a 2024 instead. So how much would you have to discount your 2022 before the buyer will buy yours over the 2024? $5k? No. That puts your 2022 and Tesla's 2024 at the exact same price. So you'll have to go even lower because the buyer can get, as an example, the Highline refresh on the 2024 which the 2022 hasn't. So you'd probably need to knock another couple thousand off at least to make your 2022 be priced at $45k to be below the 2024 at $47k.
Since you paid $52k for the Model 3 in 2022, and you've now sold it for $45k, you had depreciation of of $7k. Again this scenario excludes all tax credit because it just complicates the explanation and doesn't change the outcome that the 2022 has deprecated.
What? I'm talking about buying it from Tesla. You pay them $47k and then at the end of the year receive a $7500 credit making your purchase price $39,500. I'm not referring to buying a used car at a new car's price.
Right here in your initial comment:
What does this have to do with depreciation on EVs versus depreciation on any other vehicle? 1 of 1 cars are so rare that they're completely irrelevant when talking about the other 250 million cars on the road in the US. Again, you're comparing the MSRP of the 2022 model year versus the MSRP of the 2024 model year to claim depreciation while also ignoring my point above about the 2019 model year being much cheaper than both. While it is true that someone who paid more for the same car isn't going to get as much out of it on the used market, this is in no way unique to Tesla, EVs, or any car on the market.
The whole basis of this argument was someone claiming that EVs suffer from 'extra' depreciation and I was simply asking for some real numbers to back that claim up. All of your number mirror that of any other car on the road because a car with wear and tear on it isn't as valuable as one without (the very definition I quoted above).
Depreciation is a concern. If you buy something while the technology is improving, the resale value is going to tank as the technology matures. What you have to look at is what the cost is per mile you drive, minus the cost you can sell it for. But, fast-forward another 5-10 years and consider what an ICE vehicle will sell for on the used market. When EVs reach maturity, you won’t be able to give an ICE vehicle away without paying to dispose of it. We aren’t there yet, by a long shot, but it’s coming.
Just make sure you time it right.
Why is depreciation an issue? Don't you want a cheap car?
Fuck the NY times
Hell yeah, bro. You are revolutionary.
You couldn't pay me to switch to an EV.
Bringing down the dealership price means fuck all if they’re worthless on the second hand market, unless there’s some miracle tech that prevents the battery capacity from dropping like a lead balloon internal combustion engines are never going away. A car from the 50s can still travel the same distance on a full tank but an electric car from the early 2010s can barely get around a car park on a full charge.
Hydrogen is the way to go, it can be created using clean energy and it’s exhaust tends to be cleaner than the air it took in.
Toyota managed to run an engine from the 80s on high pressure hydrogen with barely any alterations and there have been trials where mains gas in the uk has been replaced with hydrogen. We’re so close to having the access required to transition to hydrogen but there’s only one or two models that can use it rn.
I'll take your hydrogen and raise you trains and public transit.
Building up our modern railed transit network and expanding people powered transit together is the only solution we have that's been demonstrably successful for cities in the long term.
How much have you spent in maintenance over the last 70 years to even keep it running?
Not even remotely true.
Assuming you need a new battery every 10 years or so considering that’s their usual lifespan you’re looking at spending $70,000-$140,000 at 10,000 - 20,000 per battery according to a quick Google search. Do you really think that someone is spending $2,000 a year just making sure a tiny roadster that was designed to be repaired with a spanner on a driveway can run?
Again, not true.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a31875141/electric-car-battery-life/
If the battery is at less than 70% at 8 years, they'll replace it free. My 10 year old Volt is still doing close enough to what it was new that I can't tell the difference. It's not like the battery just goes poof and turns into smoke after 10 years.
A tiny roadster from the 50s is what, an MG, Fiat, maybe a Triumph? Any one of them are probably spending more time getting repaired than actually driving.
Keeping a car from the 50s running today isn't just tightening a bolt here and there anymore. Even sourcing the parts is likely going to be non-trivial at this point.
I read a report that Model 3 LFPs were down to around $7k. CATL claims te be under $5k this year for a brand new pack good for about a 200 mile range. Analysts predict under $3k for that pack in 2025. This is even ignoring the potential to remanufacture an existing pack, reusing the parts of the packs that don't degrade, and potentially reclaiming some value for recycling the cells. LFPs also have more durability, so likely to be a 15 year workable lifespan for most drivers.
This is a rapidly evolving situation, with prices going down dramatically for battery. If it lands at less than $5k for a 15 year maintenance item, then that's even less than I spent keeping my 15 year old Acura in working order toward the end, ignoring the extra costs I had to spend on the gas compared to the EV charging. About half the gas cars I've owned have been a money pit for maintenance, and the other half haven't been super cheap either. The EVs have been much lower maintenance, though admittedly the maintenance cost will be high years down the line, but I wager in aggregate it'll be cheaper than the maintenance costs of my traditional cars have been.
because hydrogen is a storage problem. Toyota is waiting and expecting government to build the infrastructure when its supposed to be pushing for the interest in it themselves.
the major reason why EVs won was the Tesla charging network, and unless Toyota is commited to investing in the equivalent to it, its not going anywhere. the biggest reason is EVs being able to be charged at home, something the current infrastructure of hydrogen lacks.
Hydrogen all day...there's people who converted their pickups on YouTube that I saw like 10 years ago...just a guy in his driveway. Zero reason why companies haven't done this yet other then sheer ignorance or greed from oil, or both.
I personally don't trust EVs to fix anything..it just takes control away from end user and makes 2nd hand market almost nonexistent
Or maybe it's because hydrogen tanks take up a fuck ton of space and are impractical because of it. The Toyota Mirai has a horribly small trunk for a vehicle it's size. In anything smaller and you have almost no trunk. And retrofitting it into a car not designed for it? Good luck getting any reasonably sized tank in there without hacking away at the floor and making your own.
Let's also not forget that a big gas cylinder of hydrogen is basically explodium waiting to go bang in a crash as well
Pretty sure that they tested those hydrogen tanks for safety and they really don't cause issues. There's loads of safety systems in there.
The biggest issue that I have with hydrogen tanks is that the hydrogen makes those tanks brittle over time. I recall that those tanks need replacing every 8 years. Again, that's due to the hydrogen, it's not due to how much it was driven.
There is often suggestions that an EV battery doesn't last, see some comments here. Hydrogen tank issue is ignored for whatever reason.
EV batteries last way longer than conservative media likes to push on their viewers.
And once EVs become bigger and bigger in the market then battery repair will be more and more common. When batteries "die" it's typcally just a small amount of cells that are super degraded, and the rest of the pack is otherwise fine. Swap a couple 18650s from a parts battery pack and you could get a pretty solid boost in range.
Additionally, the like 2 whole hydrogen stations in the US have shut down.