Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists estimate that in the short run an increase in the CAFE standards costs US consumers $6.5 billion in value even after accounting for improved fuel efficiency. Over that same period the change reduces US manufacturers profits by $9.1billion. In the long run those costs rise significantly and are shifted more to the consumers. They also found that foreign manufacturers profits are largely unaffected by increased CAFE standards.

They also found that increased fuel efficiency due to CAFE standards incentivizes Americans to drive more resulting in increased negative externalities (pollution, congestion, accidents etc.) amounting to almost $2.10 of negative externalities per gallon. Increased accidents due to more frequent driving by itself offsets 95% of the benefits of CAFE standards.

So yes, government is not only very much A factor in the shift to EVs, it is overwhelmingly THE primary factor.

The CAFE standards alone cost US manufacturers and citizens billions of dollars every year while at the same time making us less competitive, increasing the number of accidents, increasing congestion and yielding negligible to zero benefits.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the study.

https://www.mackinac.org/S2022-06

There’s tons more data proving the point. It’s dense, and I’m a bit of a data nerd, but this is what I used to do for a living.

I’ve read that study and after you posted the link I re-read it. Very good academic analysis. It doesn’t really incorporate market dynamics though. They pointed out (accurately) that there was an increase in average vehicle fuel economy in the mid-70s before the CAFE rules took effect. What they neglected to mention is that the increase was driven primarily by the first wave of high volume imports of smaller fuel efficient vehicles from Japan and the Big 3 knee jerk response to it (Chevy Vega and Chevette, Ford Pinto and Maverick). They went on to assume that this same increase in fuel economy would have naturally continued on a linear pace absent CAFE, but there is really nothing fact based to draw that conclusion from.

The other thing they do that I question is they look at the cost of complying with CAFE through a very linear analysis, basically saying things like the cost to meet CAFE adds $X per vehicle. Setting an average price for CAFE compliance is a wild over-simplification. The automakers do very detailed assessments of technologies rating each tech at $ cost / mpg improvement. Some technologies might cost $200 to implement but only improve fuel economy by 0.00135 mpg. Another technology may improve by 5 mpg but cost $4,200. Which one is better? Keep in mind that the automaker cannot price for either. Nobody checks the box on the order form to pay more money for additional fuel economy. So automakers just increase the price of every vehicle. That does support their position that CAFE costs the consumer through vehicle price increases. It’s just that it’s not the straight line that their analysis puts forward.

There’s one area where I am in violent agreement with the study authors. The fuel economy improvements driven by CAFE could more easily and effectively occur without CAFE by simply increasing gasoline tax. Thing is, it could never happen. From page 9 of their study…

President Obama, for instance, claimed that increasing the CAFE standard to 54.5 mpg is equivalent to lowering the price of gasoline by $1 per gallon, which ignores this hidden cost. This could explain why elected officials use CAFE standards to force mileage improvements when the consensus in the academic literature is that the same improvements could be obtained at a fraction of the cost by using a gasoline tax.*

The result would be similar to what we see in parts of Europe. High gasoline prices have shaped the types of vehicles people drive. You don’t see pickup trucks or large SUVs in most of Europe. You see small to mid-sized cars and utilities with 2.0L and smaller engines. Gasoline taxes make operating pickups and large SUVs cost prohibitive. Any US Congressman or Senator who proposes raising gasoline taxes instead of CAFE regulations can look forward to a career change after the next election cycle.

Last thought… as automakers shift to zero emissions vehicles, they remove themselves from the graduate degree level calculus that is required to forecast CAFE compliance.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Last thought… as automakers shift to zero emissions vehicles, they remove themselves from the graduate degree level calculus that is required to forecast CAFE compliance.

I agree. I also think that if you consider the study's statement that auto manufacturers bear a larger burden of CAFE standards in the short term (1-3 years) it supports my contention that this a a primary motivator in shifting to EVs, avoidance of those multi billion dollar costs of compliance.

It's also my contention that government regulators are not the sharpest tacks in the box. If they were they would be in the private sector making more money. That's not intended to be a political statement and I'm not singling out a particular political party, it's applicable across the board.

One of the reasons I stopped working for the Army Corps of Engineers. I wasn't allowed to do my job correctly and efficiently because I didn't take long enough to complete projects and I was pretty insistent that the only consideration was the numbers and not the 'preselected' conclusion.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Climate change is political, has ZERO bearing on actual discussion of EV's, etc.

If there wasnt climate change there wouldnt be any need to consider less polluting alternatives, its the entire reason electric vehicles are making a comeback after 100 years.

If you dont accept man made climate change is happening youre not going to be in favour of electric cars.
If you dont accept that renewable power is cheaper and greener than fossil fuel power then youre not going to be in favour of electric cars.

Regardless of whether youre in favour or not, how long the the remaining sales window for ICE cars is, how attractive the incentives to switch to electric, the amount of infrastructure how the power is generated and what it costs are all political decisions and are inseparable from the whole concept of EVs.

[Martinjlm]

The market dynamics arm-wrestling is already starting to take hold in the EV world.

Last week Tesla dropped the prices of all of their EVs across the board. The primary motivation was to be able to fit more of their models in under the IRA guidelines ($55k for sedans, $80k for utilities). This will allow at least the lower trim levels of Model X and a higher percentage of Model3 and Model Y to qualify for buyer incentives and make the vehicles more attractive to buyers. Now this week Ford has announced price cuts of $600 - $5,900 for Mustang Mach E.


Ford Motor Co. on Monday said it would reduce the price of its 2023 Mustang Mach-E crossover by $600 to $5,900, depending on the trim, as it boosts production in hopes of solidifying its status as the nation's No. 2 electric vehicle maker.

The price cuts come shortly after Tesla Inc., by far the U.S. EV sales leader, announced price cuts of up to $13,000 on its Model Y crossover, igniting a surge in demand.

"We have to compete," Marin Gjaja, chief customer officer for Ford's EV unit, told Automotive News this weekend at the NADA Show ahead of Ford's announcement. "It's a competitive marketplace, and it just got a lot more competitive because of what Tesla did. We're not going to cede ground to anyone."

Ford said it plans to build 130,000 Mach-Es globally this year, 67 percent more than the 77,959 it produced in 2022.

Usually when automakers drop prices that much, it's because the vehicles aren't selling well and they need to move inventory. That's not the case with Mach E. It already sells well (@ 4,800 units in December) so this is clearly a move to maintain a pricing gap with Tesla Model Y. Maybe also considering position wrt VW ID.4 (@ 4,000 sold in December) and other similar sized EVs.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by docwra

If you dont accept man made climate change is happening youre not going to be in favour of electric cars.
If you dont accept that renewable power is cheaper and greener than fossil fuel power then youre not going to be in favour of electric cars.

^^^not true at all. I fall into those categories for the most part, but I'm without a doubt in favor of EVs. They will never replace ICE cars but there certainly is a lot of great features outside of renewables and $$ savings.

The performance aspect will be a lot of fun all on it's own and just make for a different experience that will find it's own nitch and some, like me will end up driving ICE and EV for different reasons. The market will ul.timately dicate where this goes

[Wyzz Kydd]

I wonder what the impact of weight based taxes on EVs will be? I would think taxes vehicles based on their weight would have a negative impact on EVs. I know the taxes are designed to make it more expensive for people to own SUVs and trucks, but that could backfire if they're not careful.

[chevy pilot]

-23 Abarth 500e Electric Gas Exhaust Sound Generator

[Wyzz Kydd]

Interesting. Wonder how they do that.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I wonder what the impact of weight based taxes on EVs will be? I would think taxes vehicles based on their weight would have a negative impact on EVs. I know the taxes are designed to make it more expensive for people to own SUVs and trucks, but that could backfire if they're not careful.

You think gov isn't planning on how to deal with the decrease in gas tax revenue?

You will start hearing about the mileage tax as EV ownership progresses.

[90503]

Originally Posted by snizzle

You think gov isn't planning on how to deal with the decrease in gas tax revenue?

You will start hearing about the mileage tax as EV ownership progresses.

...Already getting in place...Another "California Leads the Way" item...lol...It may get some temporary push-back in the short term, but more than likely "inevitable"...

Coming to a town near you!...lol

https://reformcalifornia.org/campaig...he-mileage-tax

[Camaro fanboy]

i'm on the fence if ev's are the future tbh. our leaf is superb but only for traveling to and from work. it replacing a normal car for everyday use lol. not a chance.
loss of range on motorways in cold weather is shocking. 50% less from the battery.
for us the leaf works.

[ZED SLED]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Interesting. Wonder how they do that.

pretty good episode on All Girl's Garage where they install a Borla system on a Mach-E with help from David Borla. Uses inputs from various sensors. Pretty sure show is available for download.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by ZED SLED

pretty good episode on All Girl's Garage where they install a Borla system on a Mach-E with help from David Borla. Uses inputs from various sensors. Pretty sure show is available for download.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Windycity]

Originally Posted by snizzle

You think gov isn't planning on how to deal with the decrease in gas tax revenue?

You will start hearing about the mileage tax as EV ownership progresses.

In Illinois EV owners pay a higher plate fee every year to make up for the lost gas tax revenue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk