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.
I'd like to see the politicians making these laws to have the guts to make them non-negotiable, to make "hard stops" that cannot be moved or kicked down the road. And personally post some kind of bond, maybe tied to their retirement benefits, so when it goes south, they lose their pensions. Idjits.
Every other do-good law sounds effective on the surface but any teeth are subsequently gutted in the subsections as you read on. Who's to say this is any different? LOL
Like the California mandate, doesn't really matter the majority of new vehicle sales will likely be plugins a few years before that. If they really wanted to push then it should have been 2030 or even 2025. Norway's probably going to hit virtually all plugins in the next few years.
Last month, two-thirds of new vehicle sales in Norway were battery electric and total plugin share (so also including plugin hybrids) was at 87.1%, and MA think 2035 is ambitious?
I don't trust Tesla with achieving that goal by 2023. Elon has never met a deadline that was actually met. And even if they eventually make one for $25K, it'll be offered for a few months with a few sold and then no longer offered. The Model 3 was their $35K EV. You can no longer get it and it was replaced by a $38K model with fewer features but more range.
He was ahead of deadline on the Shanghai factory and the Model Y release. He pretty much hit the half million a year mark in 2020 that was targeted in 2016. He has some misses, but they're not all misses. Even the $35K Model 3 did happen--it's just that you had to actually call or go in person to order it instead of the much easier online purchase you can do with all the vehicles. Now if you hate calling or going in person to a dealership to buy a new vehicle, then yea, that sucks, but you can still order a ~$38K Model 3 SR+ which isn't too far off that mark and maybe you give some leeway for inflation.
Like the California mandate, doesn't really matter the majority of new vehicle sales will likely be plugins a few years before that. If they really wanted to push then it should have been 2030 or even 2025. Norway's probably going to hit virtually all plugins in the next few years.
Last month, two-thirds of new vehicle sales in Norway were battery electric and total plugin share (so also including plugin hybrids) was at 87.1%, and MA think 2035 is ambitious?
Norway has led the world in using the carrot and stick method for getting EV cars on the road. When buying an EV, Norwegians:
avoid the 50% sales tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid the 25% VAT tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid annual road taxes
get up to a 50% discount on tolls and parking fees
get to use bus lanes with as few as two passengers.
Norway has led the world in using the carrot and stick method for getting EV cars on the road. When buying an EV, Norwegians:
avoid the 50% sales tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid the 25% VAT tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid annual road taxes
get up to a 50% discount on tolls and parking fees
get to use bus lanes with as few as two passengers.
You think all that won't go away once most people are migrated to EV? It's a carrot alright. And when enough people take the bait, they get the stick!
Fuel efficiency creeps up and so do gas prices. We are placated because it cost the same to fill up, but anyone needing heavy duty vehicles for work really gets the worst of it.
Norway has led the world in using the carrot and stick method for getting EV cars on the road. When buying an EV, Norwegians:
avoid the 50% sales tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid the 25% VAT tax on an ICE vehicle
avoid annual road taxes
get up to a 50% discount on tolls and parking fees
get to use bus lanes with as few as two passengers.
Yep, Norway is a lot more serious about transitioning to EVs than Massachusetts is though a bit of what you listed is off or at least incomplete. Much of what makes EVs appealing is flipping what in most countries is a price differential among similar makes of vehicles towards ICE vehicles to make it into a price differential towards EVs. However, what looks likely to happen is that battery improvements and economies of scale are going to tilt things strongly towards EVs on price comparisons without incentives over the course of this decade. Supposedly battery prices for price per kWh are on track to reach what is expected to be the price parity point for EVs within the next three to four years if not earlier. Norway essentially making that happen sooner though they will likely eventually be easing up on the incentives.
Supposedly battery prices for price per kWh are on track to reach what is expected to be the price parity point for EVs within the next three to four years if not earlier.
Why hasn't it happen with the Tesla S?
In 2009, it cost $57,400. Now, it costs more, not less.
In 2009, it cost $57,400. Now, it costs more, not less.
It's a good point and mentioned before that the automakers who have rolled out products are in an odd position with battery price decreases of what to do with prices that were set for models when battery prices were far more expensive. There are a few things they can do such as adjust the price whether officially or very unofficially, *not* adjust the price to wait for inflation to slowly creep up as other non-EVs in the segment adjust their price upwards, add more battery capacity or features, discontinue or radically retarget the vehicle, take a higher profit margin, or some combination of these.
GM has been given massive manufacturer's discounts on their Chevrolet Bolt (released late 2016) that take several thousands off of the MSRP rather than adjusting the official MSRP. There's a question of how sustainable that is--what will GM do later if they do a next generation Bolt? Will they get rid of the manufacturer's rebate and make much higher profit margins, load up the vehicles to be more upscale, make the vehicle in an entirely different segment, or some combination of these? Or will GM actually just sell it at a lower MSRP.
Nissan with the Nissan Leaf, released late 2010, appears to have been loading up on more range as batteries got cheaper per kWh (the original base Leaf had a range of 73 miles whereas the base is now 151 miles) while the sticker price has stayed roughly with Nissan not adjusting its price for inflation unlike for other vehicles. A decade of inflation is quite a bit of inflation. This was earlier mentioned in a topic about a study about total cost of ownership among small compact Japanese vehicles as mentioned below (and hasn't exactly worked out super well in Nissan's favor yet as the Leaf isn't selling that well these days):
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
It's an interesting study and the market seems to be bearing out what it says in this particular matchup as the Corolla definitely outsells the Leaf. The hundreds to low thousands of dollars saved on fuel against the already pretty efficient Corolla simply isn't going to make enough of a dent on the $15,480 difference between $17,300 for the 2011 Toyota Corolla SE and $32,780 for the 2011 Nissan Leaf SV used as the basis for the paper, nor are the subsidies. The cost different among ICEVs and EVs in the same sector essentially needs to be much closer for EVs to make much direct financial sense. In the US, you only see that clearly with Tesla vehicles, the Bolt *if* you get the massive discounts going around which seem universal in the US as a large portion of it is a manufacturer's discount, the Mini Electric in that tiny niche of zippy, small luxury-ish city cars w/ subsidies, and maybe the Hyundai/Kia small crossovers w/ subsidies.
One interesting point another poster (Vic Romano) has brought up on this forum is the idea that prices have essentially been set for existing EV nameplates and manufacturers are loathe to really drop the MSRP even as EV battery prices and thus cost of production has gone down which is a very keen observation. The Nissan Leaf base trim today is an improved vehicle from that of 2011, but with only a slightly cheaper MSRP of $31,600 which is just $1,180 dollars cheaper a decade later. I think one thing to factor in is how the competition in this paper fared and the base Corolla has essentially gone up with inflation and is now $19,925 for the base trim. So one decade later, the MSRP difference is now $11,675 rather than the $15,480 difference before and financially edges towards the Leaf only in states with additional subsidies and decent fuel cost differences as the $7,500 federal tax credit still applies for the Leaf. Now the question is what happens with the Leaf's MSRP after the $7,500 federal tax credit expires. Another similar decade of inflation with the Corolla going up in price and the Nissan Leaf having a very modest price cut still isn't going to make up for the loss of the $7,500 tax credit, so does Nissan pull a move like GM where the sticker price is still at a massive difference, but there are large manufacturer's discount as is found with the Chevy Bolt or does Nissan actually drop the MSRP? Or is it a moot point with so many small sedans and hatchbacks being dropped from lineups entirely as I don't think Nissan has clearly stated that there will be a third generation Leaf so far.
As for the Model S, one thing to mention is that it did not exist in 2009 as it was released in 2012. In 2012, it came in several trim levels with different battery packs and as a RWD vehicle (only adding a dual motor AWD later for a premium price). There were essentially three trims offered at launch which corresponded to a stripped down 40kWh (139 mile range) RWD for $57,400, a mid-level 60kWh (208 mile range) for $67,400, a long range 85 kWh (265 mile range) for $77,400, and a performance variant with the large battery pack with a larger motor and slightly lower range for $87,400. They later introduced even more variants, but ultimately Tesla simply eliminated all the base trims with lower capacity battery packs as well as the single motor RWD. There is now only dual motor AWD and only the one large battery pack that incrementally kept going up from the initial top trim version's 2012 85kWh. They now essentially offer just the long range as their base trim (and actually call it Long Range, but it's not like there's a Standard or Short Range available) for a base price of $69,400 which compares very favorably with the original long range price even without adjusting for inflation and is about the price as the base trim.
So yea--Tesla's strategy for the Model S was to eliminate base trims with smaller battery packs and only sell large battery packs. It seems to be going okay, but not great for Model S sales. It's certainly not dominating the pack the way the Model 3 is for its segment (and the Model S is more in the size range of the Mercedes E-Class, BMW 5 Series, etc. than it is the S-Class and 7 series). I do think it would make great sense for them to re-offer a smaller battery pack and cheaper trim levels of the vehicle again after a refresh/redesign. The current base trim for the Model S is the Long Range and that has a range of 402 miles with dual motor AWD and a 3.7 second 0-60 mph--that's a base trim whereas the BMW 5 Series, for instance offers their cheap base trim 520i with RWD and a 7.7 second 0-60 mph for $54,200, and I think it would make sense for the Model S to again target something similar rather than essentially going solely for the BMW M5 offerings. I say go for one more round of energy density increases to get the Long Range into 500+ mile range territory and then with that come out with about a 370+ mile range Standard Range variant with just a single motor RWD and a smaller battery pack in the mid $50K range or maybe some kind of adaptation of the Model 3's Long Range battery and powertrain if it saves on design and manufacturing costs. The Long Range's range and performance really is getting extended enough to the point where there are plenty of people where that range is pretty excessive and that level of performance is really unnecessary, but might still want a luxury full-size sedan.
The later released Model 3 (released mid-2017) has definitely reached price parity with its ICE vehicle competitors though in the entry-level luxury sedan segment and it does very well in sales in that segment.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-08-2021 at 07:40 AM..
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.
