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.
So essentially the benefits are down to fuel cost and having a full charge at home. The negatives are charging times and upfront cost. That being said I think EV vs ICE is going to forever coexist like ICE's and diesels. One isn't necessarily going to overtake the other.
The first two of your benefits are not universally applicable to all EV's, just a few expensive variants.
For example, the Chevy Bolt or Leaf isn't going to be winning any drag races. There are plenty of ICE's that are just as fast for far less money.
EVs may be quieter in theory, but engines and NVH these days can make an ICE engine feel like it's not even running. Wind, traffic, and tire noise is still the primary noise coming into the cabin of a modern car. I wouldn't call a Smart EV or BMW i3 quiet on the highway. Again, it's all based on how you design the car, and it's not necessarily powertrain dependent.
The tradeoff for "less maintenance cost" is huge maintenance cost when it comes time to replace something as EV components are best replaced as entire assemblies and not repaired. There are also fewer people who can repair them, so maintenance cost is essentially at dealer rates. Again, the maintenance cost on a modern ICE car is pretty negligible. Oil changes are less than $60 and only needed every 10K miles or so. Filters are $30 and needed every 30K miles. Transmission and radiator fluids are the most expensive and happen once every 100K miles. As with anything else, tires will be the largest expense.
The sense of "making a positive environmental decision" is essentially worthless to the vast majority of buyers as the auto markets indicate. Driving a car is still environmentally worse than walking, biking, or riding public transportation so you should not feel you're making any more of an environmentally positive impact than a guy who choses to drive an F-150 instead of an F-250. It's still selfish gluttony either way.
So essentially the benefits are down to fuel cost and having a full charge at home. The negatives are charging times and upfront cost. That being said I think EV vs ICE is going to forever coexist like ICE's and diesels. One isn't necessarily going to overtake the other.
You are correct, about how things are right now. EVs other than Tesla's are compliant vehicles, they aren't meant to outperform ICE equivalents. Companies don't want to sell too many of them (lose money).
Battery's are the key separation, eventually (say in 10 years) most companies will have access to batteries that allow them to have enough range and draw enough power. Now companies will sell cheaper vehicles and make them "slower", but they will be faster than ICE equivalents.
In 10 years, when there is motivation to actually compete in the EV space, EVs will be quiet, accelerate quickly, and charge decently.
Do you actually think eventually maintenance costs won't go lower?
I agree that EVs will not completely replace ICE. 50% in 10 years, probably 80-90% of new sales in 20 years.
You are correct, about how things are right now. EVs other than Tesla's are compliant vehicles, they aren't meant to outperform ICE equivalents. Companies don't want to sell too many of them (lose money).
Battery's are the key separation, eventually (say in 10 years) most companies will have access to batteries that allow them to have enough range and draw enough power. Now companies will sell cheaper vehicles and make them "slower", but they will be faster than ICE equivalents.
In 10 years, when there is motivation to actually compete in the EV space, EVs will be quiet, accelerate quickly, and charge decently.
Do you actually think eventually maintenance costs won't go lower?
I agree that EVs will not completely replace ICE. 50% in 10 years, probably 80-90% of new sales in 20 years.
It sounds like you’re counting on a battery that doesn’t exist.
Sure somebody could invent a battery that gets 600 mile range, charges in 5 minutes, and cost nothing, but it’s just as likely that somebody could invent an ICE that gets 100 miles per gallon.
Changes to battery chemistry and technology would mean that all the world’s existing chargers would become obsolete for every breakthrough just as an original Tesla Roadster cannot use a Supercharger. So one advancement wouldn’t necessarily become globally feasible in a short amount of time.
The reason why ICE’s have been around so long is that they’re incredibly adaptable. Cars today are dramatically more powerful, safe and efficient, yet the fueling infrastructure has been largely unchanged for the past 100 years.
I have a number of friends that own Teslas, a couple that are co-workers and I can tell you they don't make over $100k per year. When I looked into the Focus EV, I could have had it for 0 down, and $299/month. No need to make $100k per year to qualify for that lease. I skipped on it because it's a poor example of an EV having no more range than a Spark EV and less storage space as the battery takes up much of the hatch area. Drives nice, though.
That's fine but that doesn't change the demographic of the group buying it, the numbers are the numbers.
One big reason why incomes are higher is because the typical EV buyer lives on the west coast and is a homeowner.
Actually the tax credit can go to the leasing company who takes the tax break cost off the cap cost of the car if you lease it, making cars like the Leaf eligible for the tax break even if you as a buyer don't make a lot of money. You could get $0 down, $199/month leases on them, and 0 down $99/mo leases on the Fiat 500 or Spark EV. When I originally leased my Volt, I wasn't making over $100k at all. But the $269/mo lease rate was available to me still.
That is true, I remember Fiat's going for $79/month at one point. Great deal for the consumer but just goes to show how out of whack their market pricing is.
The great enemy of EV is hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids.
Frankly, plug-in hybrids are the next big thing. They're versatile and are a good compromise.
Probably, plug-ins will just keep getting longer and longer range until we're seeing 100 miles electric + 400 ICE or similar. At that point, most people will largely stay in electric mode, only switching to ICE for longer trips or when they forget to recharge.
Pure EV is silly. It's like a plug-in hybrid that forgot the non-electric part. What's the point of it?
The great enemy of EV is hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids.
Frankly, plug-in hybrids are the next big thing. They're versatile and are a good compromise.
Probably, plug-ins will just keep getting longer and longer range until we're seeing 100 miles electric + 400 ICE or similar. At that point, most people will largely stay in electric mode, only switching to ICE for longer trips or when they forget to recharge.
Pure EV is silly. It's like a plug-in hybrid that forgot the non-electric part. What's the point of it?
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Why bank on a battery breakthrough and global charging infrastructure expansion when the technology already exist to commute using electric and have the range of a gas engine right now?
I have only seen EV charging stations in two locations...one is in a public lot in a small town. I think there are 5 hookups. But there is next to nothing near the lot. Pizza place, hair salon, a few small boutiques... 300yds one way is a tiny post office. 300 yds the other way is the town library. Except the library, no place anybody goes for more than 15 minutes.
The other is in a shopping plaza behind a Red Robin restaurant. There are a lot of stores in the plaza, but the charging stations are at the far end of the plaza, where everybody fights for parking spaces close to the stores. And if you don't work in one of the stores for hours and hours, How can you even get a full charge?
And how do the charging stations work? Swipe a credit card?
And we all know that miles away from the charging station in most instances is a fossil fuel or nuke power plant, right?
I agree that EVs will not completely replace ICE. 50% in 10 years, probably 80-90% of new sales in 20 years.
I have to disagree with this. Even if everyone bought Teslas, and they were selling at Tesla's predicted rate of 500,000 per year, it would take 60 years to replace 50% of the ICE cars on the road. Even if every manufacturer switched over to all EV production tomorrow, it would take 30 years to replace all the cars in JUST the US market. While the manufacturers are moving to more EVs produced, it's going to physcailly take a lot longer to make enough to cover even 20% of the market, much less 50% of cars (And I'm including 50% of cars produced).
The great enemy of EV is hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids.
Pure EV is silly. It's like a plug-in hybrid that forgot the non-electric part. What's the point of it?
As much as I love my Volt for longer range driving when necessary, 99% of the time I'm dragging around a gas engine and a gas tank full of fuel that isn't getting used. What's the point of it?
Plug in hybrids were/are the stepping stone from ICE to pure EV, as people who have them, like me, realize that they could get by with a typical normal range EV in 99% of their driving. Had I not got such a great deal buying my Volt back, I'd have been in a pure EV this time around.
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.
