Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Come on brother. Don't gaslight. Don't ignore obvious weaknesses in the point you're trying to make.

1. Topping off at the beginning only eliminates that top 20% on the first leg of your journey. After that you're right back to 60% of range or long charge times.

I don’t think I ever implied anything to the contrary. It is exactly that. It requires thinking about travel differently. It requires unlearning the decades ingrained habits of refueling to full.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

2. Only about 60% of Americans own their own homes and far fewer own homes that are set up for EV charging. All of those people are not covered by your hypothetical situation, so roughly half the country can't do what you described.

Most of the 40% of those people can and will make the choice to NOT buy an EV. But for the 60% it’s a huge advantage.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

3. You assume that charging stations are located exactly where they need to be in order to enable that 10 hour distance. The reality is that charging stations are almost certainly NOT going to be located right where they're needed and talk about what may be true in the future is just that, talk, not reality.

Actually I do not make that assumption. As I mentioned to your point #1 it requires thinking about travel differently. When C&D did their test they took the recharging stations where they found them, so in essence it can be done. When my wife suggested we take the Model Y for our upcoming trip to Hilton Head it took me two minutes to plot the route, including scheduled stops. That was my attempt to say “I’d rather take the SRX” because personally, I’d rather go straight through. Her response was “Cool. So now we know where we’ll be stopping” Different people have different responses. The Tesla path has us going a completely different route (still major highways) than we normally take when we drive. Two hour time difference. I’m still “Team SRX” on this one. Maybe we’ll compromise and fly.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

4. Your hypothetical assumes optimal conditions. What if it's 25 degrees outside and I have two passengers and a couple of hundred pounds of gear? Suddenly those C&D numbers don't work anymore.

I make no such assumptions. The term YMMV (your mileage may vary) was coined to describe the fact that different conditions drive different results. It was coined to describe the range of ICE vehicles. Why would I assume that it doesn’t exist for EV?

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Whoops, sorry Mr. Consumer, suddenly that 10 hours is 20 hours or more and you're spending lots of 'quality' time searching for a charging station, sitting at a Buc Ee's, or walking down the side of a highway in the rain instead of at your destination.

One thing that i DO assume is that people are rational. Just like I would not take my Camaro on a trip for 3 from Detroit to Buffalo (4-1/2 hours) I wouldn’t take an EV on a trip that would require me to charge more than an hour at a time. And before we get to “everybody can’t afford a second car” I’ll start by saying renting a car or flying are options available to both. If you can’t afford either of those options you really ought to be thinking about whether you can afford to make the trip at all.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I'm all for debate, it can help get to the truth. I'm not a fan of debate where one side ignores known undisputed facts that detract from their argument.

You ignore access to charing issues at home, limited availability of chargers on the road, less than optimal EV driving conditions, excessively long charge times...and on and on. When those come up, suddenly we're talking about the future where supposedly those won't be an issue anymore.

As a former economist with the US Army Corps of Engineers I'm very familiar with projections; most of them are utter self serving garbage.

Any projections beyond a few years out are highly speculative and should be viewed with a lot of skepticism. Projections by people who have a dog in the fight (for example consultants in that industry) should be ignored completely.

You have hopefully noticed that none of my responses describe a future utopia, even though you accuse me of doing that.

As for consultants having a dog in the fight, you and I have clearly different understandings of what a consultant is or does. My role is to assist my clients in understanding what a situation is, what factors they may not see are present or not present, and in some cases what the expected outcome of strategic moves may present as a result. I am paid to NOT advocate any particular position. I have on more than one occasion presented clients with reports that don’t align with what they had hoped the results would be. I often tell my team that the measure of a good consultant is the ability to tell someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched in the face. It became clear to me that my own personal wants and preferences often run counter to market realities and that I can’t make decisions based only on what I like. I like small, high hp 2-door cars, preferably hatchbacks, that go fast and handle well. In the US market, 2-door cars are all but dead. Hatchbacks ARE dead, and in most cases, go fast or handle well…pick one. If I advocated only the things that I prefer, I’d be a failure. Instead I advocate nothing and analyze everything.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

When they go on long trips, schedule to get to your recharge points before you drop below 20% then only charge to 80% unless you have a lot of time on your hands.

This will NEVER be adapted on a large scale by Americans. No matter how much you, Queen Barra, or the (not my) President wants it to.

You can stammer and cry and jump up and down, but the bottom line is exactly what I told you about my stepdad - when traveling long distance in a car, people will accept NOTHING but to be able to travel for 300-500 miles at a time, stop to refuel when at very NEAR 0%, and fuel up to ABSOLUTE 100% range, in less than 10 minutes time, any time, day or night, any where, without the hassle of trying to "plan" ahead.

Unless you count planning ahead as the sign on the side of the highway that states "gas - 2 miles ahead"

End of discussion on that.

[bigd1276]

I think the "advantage" may just be for those in that upper percentile.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by jamala00

It's a huge advantage? Why? and buy who's standards? What defines "huge advantage"?

I can admit that saying “huge” advantage may be a bit of an over-statement and would be based on multiple individual situations and experiences. For people who are in the market for a new vehicle the simple advantage of $/kWh spent to travel X miles per year is a clear advantage of $/gal to travel the same number of miles per year.

Originally Posted by jamala00

Let me just take my situation... I "could" If I wanted to spend the money to install a charger at my house. I've stated in many posts what I'd have to do in order to do that. So I won't rehash all that. So let's just go from the point assuming I have the ability to charge an EV in at my house.

I have no debt. I currently own a '15 Impala, '18 Tahoe, '16 Camaro. So do I buy outright a 4th vehicle being an EV? Do I trade one of them in? Let's say I trade the Impala. Average cost today of a new EV is $54k. Current trade is about $18k for the Impala. That's a $36k difference I'd have to come up with to get an average cost EV today. My '15 Impala only has 34k miles on it and looks brand new. (Will last me for years yet).

Why is it (even if I had the ability to charge an EV at home) A huge advantage for me to make that choice? This is my issue with you pro EV guys. You always speak and post in such general terms. Everyone's (even those 60%) situation is different. To sit here and say it's a huge advantage just because you have the ability to charge at home... Well... a bit short sighted.

If you are not in the market for a new vehicle it might not be a huge advantage for you, especially given your pre-disposition to not wanting an EV. For someone else in your exact same situation with the exact same vehicle fleet that is not looking to buy what you have defined as the average EV at $54k I would recommend something different. “Average cost” depends on how you compute “Average” (volume weighted by sales? Price per nameplate? Wildly different numbers). There are a number of EVs with similar interior room as an Impala available for less than $40k. So let’s use $40k. Using your number of $18k for a trade-in, we’re looking at $22k for an EV. Per EPA figures, annual fuel cost for a 2015 Impala is $2,550. For a Hyundai EV6 EPA estimates fuel costs at $500/year. Mustang Mach E at $700. Kia EV6 at $600. So, assuming the Impala can go 5 - 8 more years without any significant repairs, you’re looking at $9,750 - 16,400 in fuels savings for the EV over that 5-8 trouble free years with the Impala. So for $22k a buyer can offset from $9,750 - $16,400 of the purchase price with energy savings.(depending on whether 5 years or 8 years and which EV). Some people will take that deal, some won’t. The batteries and electric motors in the EVs are under warrantee for 8 yrs / 100,000 miles (Mach E) or 10 yrs / 100,000 miles for the Hyundai and Kia. If the Impala has no powertrain issues over that 5-8 years. If it does you have to figure in the cost of repairs and/or the value of avoiding them. For some people that will be important. For others, not so much.

Originally Posted by jamala00

Don't you think there is a reason (even for the people that can charge at home) they still chose not too?

There are lots of reasons. We do surveys to suss those out. Even taking that into account we see an appreciable number of people making a decision different than yours.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by olrocker

This will NEVER be adapted on a large scale by Americans. No matter how much you, Queen Barra, or the (not my) President wants it to.

You can stammer and cry and jump up and down, but the bottom line is exactly what I told you about my stepdad - when traveling long distance in a car, people will accept NOTHING but to be able to travel for 300-500 miles at a time, stop to refuel when at very NEAR 0%, and fuel up to ABSOLUTE 100% range, in less than 10 minutes time, any time, day or night, any where, without the hassle of trying to "plan" ahead.

Unless you count planning ahead as the sign on the side of the highway that states "gas - 2 miles ahead"

End of discussion on that.

Not an easy point of life. Thank you for sharing.

[jamala00]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can admit that saying “huge” advantage may be a bit of an over-statement and would be based on multiple individual situations and experiences. For people who are in the market for a new vehicle the simple advantage of $/kWh spent to travel X miles per year is a clear advantage of $/gal to travel the same number of miles per year.

If you are not in the market for a new vehicle it might not be a huge advantage for you, especially given your pre-disposition to not wanting an EV. For someone else in your exact same situation with the exact same vehicle fleet that is not looking to buy what you have defined as the average EV at $54k I would recommend something different. “Average cost” depends on how you compute “Average” (volume weighted by sales? Price per nameplate? Wildly different numbers). There are a number of EVs with similar interior room as an Impala available for less than $40k. So let’s use $40k. Using your number of $18k for a trade-in, we’re looking at $22k for an EV. Per EPA figures, annual fuel cost for a 2015 Impala is $2,550. For a Hyundai EV6 EPA estimates fuel costs at $500/year. Mustang Mach E at $700. Kia EV6 at $600. So, assuming the Impala can go 5 - 8 more years without any significant repairs, you’re looking at $9,750 - 16,400 in fuels savings for the EV over that 5-8 trouble free years with the Impala. So for $22k a buyer can offset from $9,750 - $16,400 of the purchase price with energy savings.(depending on whether 5 years or 8 years and which EV). Some people will take that deal, some won’t. The batteries and electric motors in the EVs are under warrantee for 8 yrs / 100,000 miles (Mach E) or 10 yrs / 100,000 miles for the Hyundai and Kia. If the Impala has no powertrain issues over that 5-8 years. If it does you have to figure in the cost of repairs and/or the value of avoiding them. For some people that will be important. For others, not so much.


There are lots of reasons. We do surveys to suss those out. Even taking that into account we see an appreciable number of people making a decision different than yours.

So let me sum this up... "IF" you are in the market for a new vehicle and "IF" your budget is enough to warrant a $40k vehicle... (I'd be willing to bet that isn't the case for most Americans) It "might" behoove you to compare an EV to an ICE comparable vehicle "IF" you have the ability to charge at home and if and if and if...?? That basically sum it up?

So then the 60% (which Wiz) stated in his post.. That isn't a huge advantage for all of them. It could only be an advantage for a few in a very specific scenario.

Kia EV6 - $43,925
Mustang Mach E - $42,995

So even in your scenario It would be a saving over 5-8 years? What is that EV worth in 5-8 years? From my understanding and from posts I've seen from people who traded in EVs... They had to give them away because nobody wants a used EV. (No current market for them) There are so many things you need to account for that you guys just never mention. Fuel savings is a small part of the entire EV puzzle.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by jamala00

So let me sum this up... "IF" you are in the market for a new vehicle and "IF" your budget is enough to warrant a $40k vehicle... (I'd be willing to bet that isn't the case for most Americans) It "might" behoove you to compare an EV to an ICE comparable vehicle "IF" you have the ability to charge at home and if and if and if...?? That basically sum it up?

So then the 60% (which Wiz) stated in his post.. That isn't a huge advantage for all of them. It could only be an advantage for a few in a very specific scenario.

The average price for vehicles sold in the US in 2023 is $48k. That average is volume weighted by price of vehicles sold. So there’s a large number of people who can’t afford a new ICE either. That’s one of the reasons used and CPO volumes are increasing. And there are both ICE and EVs that are priced below $40.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can admit that saying “huge” advantage may be a bit of an over-statement and would be based on multiple individual situations and experiences. For people who are in the market for a new vehicle the simple advantage of $/kWh spent to travel X miles per year is a clear advantage of $/gal to travel the same number of miles per year.

If you are not in the market for a new vehicle it might not be a huge advantage for you, especially given your pre-disposition to not wanting an EV. For someone else in your exact same situation with the exact same vehicle fleet that is not looking to buy what you have defined as the average EV at $54k I would recommend something different. “Average cost” depends on how you compute “Average” (volume weighted by sales? Price per nameplate? Wildly different numbers). There are a number of EVs with similar interior room as an Impala available for less than $40k. So let’s use $40k. Using your number of $18k for a trade-in, we’re looking at $22k for an EV. Per EPA figures, annual fuel cost for a 2015 Impala is $2,550. For a Hyundai EV6 EPA estimates fuel costs at $500/year. Mustang Mach E at $700. Kia EV6 at $600. So, assuming the Impala can go 5 - 8 more years without any significant repairs, you’re looking at $9,750 - 16,400 in fuels savings for the EV over that 5-8 trouble free years with the Impala. So for $22k a buyer can offset from $9,750 - $16,400 of the purchase price with energy savings.(depending on whether 5 years or 8 years and which EV). Some people will take that deal, some won’t. The batteries and electric motors in the EVs are under warrantee for 8 yrs / 100,000 miles (Mach E) or 10 yrs / 100,000 miles for the Hyundai and Kia. If the Impala has no powertrain issues over that 5-8 years. If it does you have to figure in the cost of repairs and/or the value of avoiding them. For some people that will be important. For others, not so much.


There are lots of reasons. We do surveys to suss those out. Even taking that into account we see an appreciable number of people making a decision different than yours.

How often does that cross shopping equation actually get asked? People trust brands differently, and have differing product loyalties. People even preferring similar vehicles from GM and Ford won't cross shop.

We will find out how thin their EV consideration level is. I think you even said something close about the EV Equinox. But, there will be some for them. A more civil turn for the thread would be which EV babies aren't ugly and for whom. The affluent buyer was just mentioned today.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

How often does that cross shopping equation actually get asked? People trust brands differently, and have differing product loyalties. People even preferring similar vehicles from GM and Ford won't cross shop.

We will find out how thin their EV consideration level is. I think you even said something close about the EV Equinox. But, there will be some for them. A more civil turn for the thread would be which EV babies aren't ugly and for whom. The affluent buyer was just mentioned today.

I like how you are thinking on this. Until a lot of the products that are expected to hit the market in 2024 (many of which were s’posed to be here in ‘23) we don’t really have experience data for comparing affordable options.

As far as brand loyalty goes, we (S&P Global Mobility) have studies that show that the pandemic, the chip shortage, and supply chain crisis have combined to hammer the hell out of brand loyalty. Even amongst pickup trucks which have the highest loyalty of any segment. And then there’s Tesla. Tesla has moved from non-existent to having two vehicles in the top 10 vehicles sold in the US / #1 selling vehicle in the world. And also having the highest loyalty of any brand BY…A…LOT. Over 90% loyalty compared to high 60s for the 2nd and 3rd ranked brands.

[jamala00]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The average price for vehicles sold in the US in 2023 is $48k. That average is volume weighted by price of vehicles sold. So there’s a large number of people who can’t afford a new ICE either. That’s one of the reasons used and CPO volumes are increasing. And there are both ICE and EVs that are priced below $40.

Sure, but the reality with EV's is if the lower the price you go the cheaper the battery and less range you get. Isn't that what a lot of peoples issues with EV's is today... (The Range)...? So why would someone buy a lower model EV? It's why the manufactures don't ever make the entry level variants of them. They make the top trim levels first (highest grossing profit) and don't make the lower trim.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by jamala00

Sure, but the reality with EV's is if the lower the price you go the cheaper the battery and less range you get. Isn't that what a lot of peoples issues with EV's is today... (The Range)...? So why would someone buy a lower model EV? It's why the manufactures don't ever make the entry level variants of them. They make the top trim levels first (highest grossing profit) and don't make the lower trim.

Not necessarily true.

Why would anyone by a 4-cylinder or 6 cylinder Camaro if an 8 cylinder is available? Engine size is to ICE as battery size / motor count is to EVs.

Bolt EUV: Range is 247, Price starts at $27,800

Tesla Model 3: Range is 272, Price starts at $38,990. Can be leased for $329 for 36 months

Tesla Model 3 LR AWD: Range is 333, Prices start at $45,990 (over $40k but still below average new vehicle transaction price in 2023)

[jamala00]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not necessarily true.

Why would anyone by a 4-cylinder or 6 cylinder Camaro if an 8 cylinder is available? Engine size is to ICE as battery size / motor count is to EVs.

Bolt EUV: Range is 247, Price starts at $27,800

Tesla Model 3: Range is 272, Price starts at $38,990. Can be leased for $329 for 36 months

Tesla Model 3 LR AWD: Range is 333, Prices start at $45,990 (over $40k but still below average new vehicle transaction price in 2023)

Not necessarily true. People buy the Camaro because #1, they love the look. Then for whatever reason (mpg or cost) decides to get it with a V6. They still bought the Camaro first because of the design, not because of the gas mileage. They were drawn to the Camaro.

When someone buys and EV, you are going to try to tell me their main reason to purchase said EV is because of the look?? Come-On, even you don't believe that.

I believe I read somewhere that range anxiety for EV buyers is 300 miles? (maybe it was 400) but 300 seems to ring a bell. You didn't list one vehicle there under $40k that gets greater then 300 miles on a charge. (Lets not get into those are not realistic ranges either in reality.)

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

As far as brand loyalty goes, we (S&P Global Mobility) have studies that show that the pandemic, the chip shortage, and supply chain crisis have combined to hammer the hell out of brand loyalty. Even amongst pickup trucks which have the highest loyalty of any segment.

So what was that contributed too? Was it because buyers just chose to buy what was available to them at the time, or was it because buyers decided they no longer wanted say a Chevy truck over a Dodge? Also now that the pandemic is over and dealers have stock available again, will those people that liked that Chevy before (that couldn't get one) now go back to a Chevy?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by jamala00

Not necessarily true. People buy the Camaro because #1, they love the look. Then for whatever reason (mpg or cost) decides to get it with a V6. They still bought the Camaro first because of the design, not because of the gas mileage. They were drawn to the Camaro.

When someone buys and EV, you are going to try to tell me their main reason to purchase said EV is because of the look?? Come-On, even you don't believe that.

I believe I read somewhere that range anxiety for EV buyers is 300 miles? (maybe it was 400) but 300 seems to ring a bell. You didn't list one vehicle there under $40k that gets greater then 300 miles on a charge. (Lets not get into those are not realistic ranges either in reality.)

EV buyers are no more one dimensional than ICE buyers. Just focused on different dimensions. Sure, there are some that would buy a butt ugly commuter vehicle just because it was zero emissions. Just like some people will buy a 5.7L Challenger because “it’s got a Hemi”. And there’s no doubt that range is the most important thing (not the ONLY thing) for selecting an EV, just like performance is not the ONLY thing considered when buying a muscle car (look at Mustang sales vs Camaro).

As for consumer expectations of range, there’s this chart. It measures the acceptable range for an EV, based on survey asking people how much range an EV would have to have before they’d consider buying it. The greyed area is what would be considered the sweet spot for EV manufacturers.

FWIW IHS Markit was the name of my part of the company before it was acquired by S&P Global in 2022.

[0stones0]

Just had a fairly lengthy conversation with the driver of this vehicle. They explained how they regularly run out of charge before they get done with their routes, charging is already down to 60% and have way more than 2/3 of the route, yet to do. The all screen controls are very distracting vs just touching a knob, the braking system feels quite eratic and the overall feel of driving the vehicle feels like a “go cart”.
The person told me from the get go that they don’t have anything against the EV, it just is not what the drivers want to use to try and get their routes done.
No spin here, just real world info.