Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not true. While no one is taking away any current ICE vehicle, yet, the current administration has set forth an EPA rule mandating that 2026 model ICE vehicles must meet unobtainable fuel mileage standards. Meaning, they're not "banning" ICE vehicles, they're regulating them out of existence, despite the fact that the market still wants them.
Not true at all - you are confusing purchases with the ability to use a vehicle you already own. Also "unobtainable" is an opinion - saying they are "regulating them out of existence" is not reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
Is everyone going to be driving the same EV for their entire life? Assuming your figures are correct, there's only enough lithium for everyone to have two EV's for their entire lives, and that doesn't include the next generations who are going to need cars. And, that doesn't include that lithium is also needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers and other lawn care equipment, etc., etc., etc.
It's a pipe dream.
Again - bad info and misuse of the data - it will be well over 50 years for all ICE vehicles to be replaced. Lithium is a metal, it is not consumed so can be used over and over again and there are already batteries that do not use Lithium in use - LI is not the driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
California has frequent black-out threats. ICE vehicles place no strain on the power grid. A twenty to thirty percent increase in demand cannot be met with current infrastructure.
Read the post right after the one you referenced - I already addressed this. Not an issue.
Let's assume there is enough lithium to replace every ICE vehicle with an EV. That would only replace them once. Meaning, everyone only gets one EV for their entire life. That's not feasible. That's not realistic. And, it ignores that the world population is growing, meaning you actually need more lithium than just enough to replace every current ICE vehicle. Not including the lithium needed for smartphone batteries, laptops, tablets, electric lawn mowers, etc.
It's a pipe dream.
Why post the same bad info twice - doesn't make it not true - Lithium is reusable, it is not consumed. There are already Na batteries if needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
The slave labor is what keeps EV's somewhat affordable. To mine those elements ethically costs more money, meaning the end product is more expensive for the consumer to purchase, making their adoption less likely, no matter how much the government mandates it.
The slave labor in Australia or is it Chile? Lithium comes mostly from those countries - I didn't realize they used slave labor. If talking about Cobalt - Tesla batteries already do not use Co - other EV makers are catching up. Your cell phone has more Co than many EVs. But just to be clear, most Cobalt (like 70%) is used in things like refining gas and as an industrial element - little is used for EVs today. Many EVs are now using LFP chemistry (LiFePo4) - no rare earths in those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
EV's are toys for those with money.
As already has been pointed out, EVs can be less than ICE to buy and operate - a $40K car (less than the average price of a new car today) that can outperform most sports cars. They are not "toys".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
I was just comparing range. For $26,000, you can buy a base model Camry with an average range of five hundred miles. No EV comes close to that range, and the one's that have three hundred miles of range are $15,000 to $25,000 more expensive. And, for what? That's why they're toys for those who have money. They're not for the working man.
So comparing based on just one statistic is very disingenuous - and you claim is not correct either, the Lucid Air has 516 miles of range. But when you charge at home every night, 300+ miles is more than enough for over 99% of normal travel.
As already has been pointed out, EVs can be less than ICE to buy and operate - a $40K car (less than the average price of a new car today) that can outperform most sports cars. They are not "toys".
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
I was just comparing range. For $26,000, you can buy a base model Camry with an average range of five hundred miles. No EV comes close to that range, and the one's that have three hundred miles of range are $15,000 to $25,000 more expensive. And, for what? That's why they're toys for those who have money. They're not for the working man
So comparing based on just one statistic is very disingenuous - and you claim is not correct either, the Lucid Air has 516 miles of range. But when you charge at home every night, 300+ miles is more than enough for over 99% of normal travel.
The Lucid Air costs $125,600 (base model). If you’re trying to sell the idea that EVs can be for the working people, you ought to pick a better example.
The topic is about the affordability of pure electric cars. I remain unconvinced.
Not really true - for example, the BMW Series 3 is about $5K more than a similar Tesla Model 3 and with the rebate, the Tesla becomes much cheaper even though comes with more standard features that are optional on the BMW and has a bigger interior - the EV does have shorter range.
Currently the Tesla Model 3 starts at $40.2K while the BMW starts at $45.5K but need to add at least $1.5K to get somewhat similar features. So Tesla comes in at $32.7K after rebate vs the BMWs $47K with similar contents - the BMW ICE vehicle is almost 1.5x more than a similar EV.
See this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
With the notable exception of the Bolt and especially with the federal tax credit where the Bolt effectively becomes cheaper than its main contenders, purchase price parity exists only in the premium market for the US. That's probably still a few years away.
"Currently, most estimates put the average price of a new EV somewhere around $64,000, which is slightly lower than the average price in the spring and summer of last year (2022). For comparison, the average price in 2023 of a new car of any kind in the US is around $48,000."
Now considering the article above is within the context of cost to ownership, the higher the initial cost to acquire the car the lesser the savings on maintenance and fuel/powering the vehicle factor in.
Of course, you can cherry-pick individual cars to compare but it doesn't make it generally true. This is ESPECIALLY true if you compare across brands when so many other things factor in (i.e. Supply/Demand and brand strength). BMW sold over 2 million cars in 2021 while Tesla sold just under 1 million. BMW has a very strong brand and thus they can ask for higher prices. This is the reason why the article picked vehicles of similar makes and models to compare.
When we have more options similar to the Bolt, I will consider one. I make a very good income but I'm not interested in spending 60k+ on a depreciating asset that essentially doesn't save much more money than the equivalent gas vehicle. The cost of hybrids are starting to be more reasonable as their purchase price and cost to run is falling somewhere between gas and EVs. I am considering one but I am concern with maintenance over the long run due to having both electric and gasoline systems.
"Currently, most estimates put the average price of a new EV somewhere around $64,000, which is slightly lower than the average price in the spring and summer of last year (2022). For comparison, the average price in 2023 of a new car of any kind in the US is around $48,000."
Now considering the article above is within the context of cost to ownership, the higher the initial cost to acquire the car the lesser the savings on maintenance and fuel/powering the vehicle factor in.
Of course, you can cherry-pick individual cars to compare but it doesn't make it generally true. This is ESPECIALLY true if you compare across brands when so many other things factor in (i.e. Supply/Demand and brand strength). BMW sold over 2 million cars in 2021 while Tesla sold just under 1 million. BMW has a very strong brand and thus they can ask for higher prices. This is the reason why the article picked vehicles of similar makes and models to compare.
When we have more options similar to the Bolt, I will consider one. I make a very good income but I'm not interested in spending 60k+ on a depreciating asset that essentially doesn't save much more money than the equivalent gas vehicle. The cost of hybrids are starting to be more reasonable as their purchase price and cost to run is falling somewhere between gas and EVs. I am considering one but I am concern with maintenance over the long run due to having both electric and gasoline systems.
Both ddeemo and myself are saying the same things and the article you're linking to is supporting that. EVs are at purchase price parity in the premium market. The premium market has existed well, well before Tesla started mass producing vehicles, and it's within that market where EVs in the US are currently at competitive purchase prices without factoring in tax credits or cost of operations. A $67K average for EVs puts the bulk of EV sales squarely into the premium segments. You can also see that in sales numbers since Tesla which only competes in those segments has an outright majority of EV sales. It's weird to call that cherry picking if what's being picked as an example falls squarely into exactly what we're saying.
As for sales numbers, Tesla sold more vehicles with only four entries in the US market than BMW did despite BMW having a much larger lineup with Tesla registering 485K sales in the US last year versus 330K for BMW and 270K for Mercedes. Tesla still has a lot of markets it doesn't currently sell in, but even with that, Tesla's on track to have global sales volumes in line with that of BMW and Mercedes this year. That being said, a lot of BMW and Mercedes sales are also shifting to electric, because again, it's the premium market where electric vehicles are seeing purchase price parity along with that is a comparatively much larger operational cost savings because premium market internal combustion engine vehicles are generally even less fuel efficient than their non-premium market counterparts and they often use more expensive premium gasoline.
For non-premium segments in the US market, aside from the Bolt and arguably the Mini SE, EVs aren't currently at purchase price parity. It's possible to get equal or better total levelized cost of ownership for non-premium segments to make up for the difference in initial purchase price in the non-premium segments when you factor in credits, rebates, and other incentive packages alongside savings over years of operation costs, but it's likely still a few years away before purchase price parity for non-premium segments is reached. The OP's article was to try to factor some of that into an apples to apples comparison but it left out the premium segment where the comparison can become heavily lopsided in favor of EVs. Of course, expecting the article to be exhaustive and doing all vehicles in all segments doesn't make sense since that's not what it claims or set out to do, so I think it's pretty good for the limited examples they are using and help outline some of the factors. I agree with the general analysis of trying to plot some years of operating expense though if they are doing total costs then they really should be factoring credits and rebates or at least anyone cross-shopping vehicles should be doing that. The only miss I think in the article is that it's not the right trim level that's being compared since the base level of the EVs in these two cases are essentially at a higher trim level than the ICE vehicles they're being compared against. At similar trim levels for features and power, the Mini EV is about comparable purchase price and the Hyundai Kona Electric is at a still higher, but much reduced gap.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-27-2023 at 01:06 PM..
Both ddeemo and myself are saying the same things and the article you're linking to is supporting that. EVs are at purchase price parity in the premium market. The premium market has existed well, well before Tesla started mass producing vehicles, and it's within that market where EVs in the US are currently at competitive purchase prices without factoring in tax credits or cost of operations. A $67K average for EVs puts the bulk of EV sales squarely into the premium segments. You can also see that in sales numbers since Tesla which only competes in those segments has an outright majority of EV sales. It's weird to call that cherry picking if what's being picked as an example falls squarely into exactly what we're saying.
As for sales numbers, Tesla sold more vehicles with only four entries in the US market than BMW did despite BMW having a much larger lineup with Tesla registering 485K sales in the US last year versus 330K for BMW and 270K for Mercedes. Tesla still has a lot of markets it doesn't currently sell in, but even with that, Tesla's on track to have global sales volumes in line with that of BMW and Mercedes this year. That being said, a lot of BMW and Mercedes sales are also shifting to electric, because again, it's the premium market where electric vehicles are seeing purchase price parity along with that is a comparatively much larger operational cost savings because premium market internal combustion engine vehicles are generally even less fuel efficient than their non-premium market counterparts and they often use more expensive premium gasoline.
For non-premium segments in the US market, aside from the Bolt and arguably the Mini SE, EVs aren't currently at purchase price parity. It's possible to get equal or better total levelized cost of ownership for non-premium segments to make up for the difference in initial purchase price in the non-premium segments when you factor in credits, rebates, and other incentive packages alongside savings over years of operation costs, but it's likely still a few years away before purchase price parity for non-premium segments is reached. The OP's article was to try to factor some of that into an apples to apples comparison but it left out the premium segment where the comparison can become heavily lopsided in favor of EVs. Of course, expecting the article to be exhaustive and doing all vehicles in all segments doesn't make sense since that's not what it claims or set out to do, so I think it's pretty good for the limited examples they are using and help outline some of the factors. I agree with the general analysis of trying to plot some years of operating expense though if they are doing total costs then they really should be factoring credits and rebates or at least anyone cross-shopping vehicles should be doing that. The only miss I think in the article is that it's not the right trim level that's being compared since the base level of the EVs in these two cases are essentially at a higher trim level than the ICE vehicles they're being compared against. At similar trim levels for features and power, the Mini EV is about comparable purchase price and the Hyundai Kona Electric is at a still higher, but much reduced gap.
At the premium segment the cost savings of better maintenance and electric over gas is marginal compared to the entire cost of car. Even if you save $10k over the course of three year ownership, that is a relative small savings when you consider the cost of the vehicle was $67k. $10k savings over the course of three year ownership is a significant amount when the cost of the vehicle was only in the $34k (ie Bolt)
I can do a lot better with the difference in total cost of ownership diverted to financial investments. It still makes absolutely no financial sense to go into the premium market for an EV over gas purely from a cost-savings standpoint. Sure, go ahead if low cost of ownership is only a secondary or third priority with priorities along the lines of luxury or performance. However, the point of this article was from a pure cost savings standpoint which is probably why the article didn't cover the premium market.
The Hyundai Kona Electric in the article cost of ownership after the 7500 tax credit is almost 48k. And that is NOT a premium vehicle that costs more than 1/2 the average household income in the US.
There isn't enough lithium on this planet to replace every ICE vehicle with an EV, and even if there were, there isn't enough electricity produced to power them.
They're a fad. You can get more utility out of a Toyota Camry than a Tesla Model Y and for tens of thousands of dollars less.
A few days ago, within a few minutes of each other, I saw a Lexus ES sedan Hybrid and a Camry Hybrid.
I usually like the styling better on a Lexus between the 'Toyota/Lexus similars', but in this case I prefer the styling of the Camry.
At the premium segment the cost savings of better maintenance and electric over gas is marginal compared to the entire cost of car. Even if you save $10k over the course of three year ownership, that is a relative small savings when you consider the cost of the vehicle was $67k. $10k savings over the course of three year ownership is a significant amount when the cost of the vehicle was only in the $34k (ie Bolt)
I can do a lot better with the difference in total cost of ownership diverted to financial investments. It still makes absolutely no financial sense to go into the premium market for an EV over gas purely from a cost-savings standpoint. Sure, go ahead if low cost of ownership is only a secondary or third priority with priorities along the lines of luxury or performance. However, the point of this article was from a pure cost savings standpoint which is probably why the article didn't cover the premium market.
The Hyundai Kona Electric in the article cost of ownership after the 7500 tax credit is almost 48k. And that is NOT a premium vehicle that costs more than 1/2 the average household income in the US.
I'll once again reiterate that it's mainly the premium segments that are at purchase price parity. This by no means equates to saying that low cost of ownership is the primary concern for a vehicle purchased in the premium market--that was never stated nor do I think other people believe that for the most part. What was said was about purchase price parity. Other advantages of EVs are the convenience of being able to charge at home, instant torque, low NVH from the powertrain, and for EVs on platforms dedicated to EVs, packaging that allows for more usable interior space for given exterior dimensions, but that wasn't what the discussion was about at the time.
That being said, I disagree with some of what was said and that there's a bit of funny business with the prices used in the comparison. A $10K operational savings on a $67K vehicle is not a rounding error. It's not a primary factor, but I don't think it's insignificant either. The $67K average figure is also kind of odd now given the rash of price cuts. The latest average transaction price for vehicles was $48,334 for this past July while that for EVs was $53,469. Still a difference, but much smaller.
The funny business with numbers are that they are even more outdated than the average transaction price comparisons. You mentioned a $34K price for the Bolt, but there was a large price cut over a year ago (though before then, there were already across the board effective price cuts just not with the MSRP itself). The MSRP with destination charge for the Bolt is $27,495 and not $34K. So that's one bit that's odd.
Another is that despite the article the OP posted being just a few days ago on August 25th, 2023, the numbers are definitely not current. Here are the purchase price numbers (MSRP + destination charges) for their comparison:
Quote:
The cars' purchase prices (including destination charges) are as follows:
Mini Cooper Hardtop: $24,250
Mini Electric: $30,750
Hyundai Kona: $21,440
Hyundai Kona Electric: $38,330
Let's concentrate on the Kona first because it has a much larger discrepancy here than the Mini. I knew immediately it was a bit odd because of the Kona Electric number, but didn't dive into it at first, so it's good that you brought this up.
The Hyundai Kona and Hyundai Kona Electric go in for a refresh for MY2024, but hasn't shipped so let's go with 2023 model year for now. The 2023 Hyundai Kona starts at $23,475 (MSRP+destination charge). So where did they get their $21,440 figure? Oh wait, that number is from the 2020 model year. Sort of odd to be posting that as a starting price for an article that was posted within the last week. Did they do the same to get the $38,330 figure for the Kona Electric? Well, yes they did. I knew Hyundai had done price cuts a couple of years back in the middle of model year 2022 for the Kona Electric, so what's the price now for model year 2023? It's $34,885. So, despite being an article from a week ago, the numbers posted are from at least two years and three model years ago.
There's still a steep purchase price difference but it's now $23,475 vs $34,885 which is a difference of $11,410. That difference is steep, but it's less so than the $16,890 price difference for MY2020.
So that's one oddity. The other is that the base trim of the Hyundai Kona Electric isn't quite comparable to that of the Hyundai Kona. The most obvious difference are in the performance specs of the Hyundai Kona Electric base trim vs that of the Hyundai Kona base trim. It's 201 hp with 291 lb-feet of torque vs 147 hp with 132 lb-feet of torque. That's a pretty massive discrepancy. There is a more powerful engine available for the Hyundai Kona but that starts with the N line trim that starts at $29,185 (MSRP+destination charge) which has 195 hp with 195 lb-feet of torque and it and that nets a 0-60 mph figure of 7.3 seconds versus 6.4 seconds for the Kona Electric. If you look at the features list in a cross comparison of the base Kona Electric, the Kona N Line, and the base Kona, you also see that the features list is about comparable between the Kona Electric and Kona N Line while the base Kona is more lacking. With that, the more reasonable comparison for the Kona Electric isn't the base Kona but the Kona N-Line which starts at $29,185. The cost difference between that and the base Kona Electric is $5,700. This is a significant change from the $16,890 difference used in the article the OP posted. With that, another part of the calculation that should change is that the N-line is a tad thirstier than the base trim Kona so the three year operating cost should likewise be adjusted though the adjustment is negligible in this case.
Still, it's not purchase price parity and this goes back to what I've been saying--purchase price parity for the broader US market isn't there yet. It's there for entries in the premium segments, but not the broader US market save for the Chevrolet Bolt and arguably the Mini SE. Everything else relies on incentives and cost of ownership to offset the purchase price difference. With the figures the OP's link used, that seems virtually impossible for Kona Electric vs the Kona, but the key to that is those numbers aren't accurate today (likely regurgitation of a previous article from three years ago and then marked as posted recently in order to get more clicks and shares from people who didn't bother to actually read what's being compared and think about it) and the comparison was demonstrably flawed even when the article was originally posted.
It wouldn't be too surprising if this article makes another round some time later. That also happens with another article about cost of charging from the Anderson Economic Group which makes some pretty insane assumptions like charging 25 days at home and yet also going out of your way to fast charge for long periods of time several times a month despite assuming a pretty average number of miles driven a month, spending a premium on getting a home charger by paying the upper end of the usual pricing spectrum but somehow installing it in a way that's so ass backwards that it takes about 5 minutes to plug in each time at home, and then also the person then gets charged by the minute equivalent to their high income salary for all this additional wasted time. Those articles are a delight and seem to resurface every several months on this forum as some people on this forum just eat that up each and every time.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-27-2023 at 08:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
