Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[Paper Chaser]

You can make artificial fuel, no problem, Hitler did it.
But then and now the main problem is that it's several times more expensive. (And I don't think it's better environmentally btw.)

Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.

If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.

Rolling Coal is the epitome of human stupidity. If there are Aliens, they only need to show this to convince everyone to put a "wild animals, do not enter" sign on our solar system.

Porsche has announced intentions to make synthetic fuels going forward.

While a synthetic fuel made using renewable electricity can be carbon neutral, it's still going to have tailpipe emissions that form smog and create GHGs. It's also super expensive. I think their stretch goal was to eventually scale enough to get the price down to just $7/gal or something. Porsche is investing in it because lots of old Porsche's have lots of value, and they'd like them to retain that value by still being usable in the future. Porsche is about the only manufacturer that can really do something like that because they've got the engineering chops, they've got the legacy cars, and they've got clientele that won't flinch paying lots for fuel to keep their vintage machines on the road in locations where carbon neutral fuels will be required. But that's likely a very niche product rather than a widespread solution for pollution/air quality/climate change.

[Paper Chaser]

Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/

About time rental companies offered this as a choice.

This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.

I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.

It will be interesting to see how they approach it. The EVs should be lower maintenance, at least from the powertrains, but how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need powertrain maintenance? It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit. I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

[nereo]

You can make artificial fuel, no problem, Hitler did it.
But then and now the main problem is that it's several times more expensive. (And I don't think it's better environmentally btw.)

Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.

If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.

Rolling Coal is the epitome of human stupidity. If there are Aliens, they only need to show this to convince everyone to put a "wild animals, do not enter" sign on our solar system.

Porsche has announced intentions to make synthetic fuels going forward.

While a synthetic fuel made using renewable electricity can be carbon neutral, it's still going to have tailpipe emissions that form smog and create GHGs. It's also super expensive. I think their stretch goal was to eventually scale enough to get the price down to just $7/gal or something. Porsche is investing in it because lots of old Porsche's have lots of value, and they'd like them to retain that value by still being usable in the future. Porsche is about the only manufacturer that can really do something like that because they've got the engineering chops, they've got the legacy cars, and they've got clientele that won't flinch paying lots for fuel to keep their vintage machines on the road in locations where carbon neutral fuels will be required. But that's likely a very niche product rather than a widespread solution for pollution/air quality/climate change.

At $7/gal current BEVs become a no-brainer from an economic perspective. I think you are right that it would only appeal to those who don’t really don’t give a hoot about the cost, many of whom are classic car enthusiasts that don’t drive them as daily commuters.

[RWD]

It will be interesting to see how they approach it. The EVs should be lower maintenance, at least from the powertrains, but how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need powertrain maintenance?

Rental cars rack up 30k miles (+/-) which means at least an oil change or two. But that's pretty small potatoes as far as combustion engine maintenance goes.

[Paper Chaser]

It will be interesting to see how they approach it. The EVs should be lower maintenance, at least from the powertrains, but how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need powertrain maintenance?

Rental cars rack up 30k miles (+/-) which means at least an oil change or two. But that's pretty small potatoes as far as combustion engine maintenance goes.

100% correct. That's the point I was trying to make, but I worded my post poorly. I should've said something like "how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need meaningful and costly powertrain maintenance. Anyway, EV cost of ownership can be a benefit, but it's not always as much as people might think, at least early in a vehicle's life:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30209598/2019-tesla-model-3-reliability-maintenance/

Tesla estimates that a Model 3 is "Nearly on par" with the costs of ownership of a basic Camry after 5 years:

https://insideevs.com/news/526078/tesla-model3-cost-toyota-camry/

For most users the biggest financial benefit of an EV is charging at home where electricity is cheap. If you're renting the vehicle, you're probably not charging at home. You're stuck using the more costly public charging networks, so EV rental customers aren't likely to save much money either. It's fine to offer more options, and it's fine to choose an EV over an ICE if you're renting. But I'm not sure this will be a slam dunk financially for a rental company unless they're banking on low depreciation, or simply doing this for some good press and the ability to give customers another option.

[AlanStache]

I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

No.

The second fastest off road car is your rental car, the first fastest off-roader is your buddies rental car. 

I would very much hesitate to buy a second hand rental car, maybe with Tesla on board logging showing its real maintenance state and the reduction of mechanical parts to be damaged.  I would not say I abuse rental cars but I sure dont drive them like I own them.

[GodlessCommie]

I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

I agree. For reasons rational or not, teslas do keep their value. It must be very attractive to anybody who has to buy new and sell soon.

[nereo]

I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

No.

The second fastest off road car is your rental car, the first fastest off-roader is your buddies rental car. 

I would very much hesitate to buy a second hand rental car, maybe with Tesla on board logging showing its real maintenance state and the reduction of mechanical parts to be damaged.  I would not say I abuse rental cars but I sure dont drive them like I own them.

Are you sure about this? I remember reading how the overwhelming majority of rentals involved trips from the airport to a hotel/conference center/resort and not much else. Given how poorly most people maintain their own cars I’m not convinced that a used rental car is any more risky than a used private vehicle coming off lease.

[dandarc]

I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

No.

The second fastest off road car is your rental car, the first fastest off-roader is your buddies rental car. 

I would very much hesitate to buy a second hand rental car, maybe with Tesla on board logging showing its real maintenance state and the reduction of mechanical parts to be damaged.  I would not say I abuse rental cars but I sure dont drive them like I own them.

Are you sure about this? I remember reading how the overwhelming majority of rentals involved trips from the airport to a hotel/conference center/resort and not much else. Given how poorly most people maintain their own cars I’m not convinced that a used rental car is any more risky than a used private vehicle coming off lease.

I'll submit the current exterior appearance of our current cars, one of which was brand new when we bought it, as proof of your point . . . also if you have a newer car, and then move to a place with a garage, make sure your garage is at least a quite large one or is not a garage at all. We did a number on that new car in the single car garage that came with our apartment in California - one time the bumper cover came all the way off. So the next time I lose my mind and take a job on the other side of the country, "garage" is gonna be a net negative when apartment shopping.

[AlanStache]

...

Are you sure about this? I remember reading how the overwhelming majority of rentals involved trips from the airport to a hotel/conference center/resort and not much else. Given how poorly most people maintain their own cars I’m not convinced that a used rental car is any more risky than a used private vehicle coming off lease.
[/quote]

Its a joke, about how drivers dont really care about rental cars and will drive them where ever they want, and at speeds over speed bumps.  Also renters may not report minor accidents (I have not - was even the other guys fault, to much hassle) that happen. 

[StashingAway]

It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.

It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

[Paper Chaser]

It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.

It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.

[boarder42]

It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.

It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.

in a vacuum yes but the car is now out there and available on the second hand market so society will experience these benefits long term.  Also MMMers will buy used EVs as they already do.

[Paper Chaser]

It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.

It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.

in a vacuum yes but the car is now out there and available on the second hand market so society will experience these benefits long term.  Also MMMers will buy used EVs as they already do.

Of course. However, the context of my original quote focused on rental companies buying new Teslas. They're not buying used, and they're not MMMers. From a business perspective, I'm not sure that they'll see much if any cost savings unless they plan to alter their model. Like I've said a few times already, I think lower depreciation might be a pretty significant component in the math for these rental agencies. More than charging costs or decreased maintenance. But that advantage might be eroded when they're throwing 20-30k Model 3s onto the used vehicle market every year with 25-30k miles. That's great for MMMers that might benefit from lower used EV prices, but increases depreciation.

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

[neo von retorch]

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)

For example, if over the next year 5 million vehicles will be purchased that are either ICE, PHEV or EV.

PHEV environment impact is 1.0 Enviromental Improvement Units.
EV environment impact is 1.5 EIU
All ICE are 0.0 EIU. (Or negative...)

Obviously ideal is 5 million EV.

But if EV cost 15% more than PHEV (according to consumer appetites) and 25% more than ICE, then EVs will appeal to less consumers.

This is all worse than terrible back of the napkin math. One would hope Toyota and VW and Ford and GM are doing a little more concrete math... and market research (They likely only care about EIU as a selling feature.)

At any rate, if you can sell 50/50 PHEV/EV on 1 million units (the other 4 million go to ICE), you've managed 1.25 million EIU.
60/40 PHEV/EV => 1.2 m EIU. (But 40/60 PHEV/EV => 1.3m EIU)
But 60/40 PHEV/EV and you get 1.2 million units => 1.44m EIU so yeah if you are selling more PHEV/EV and less ICE, compared to just EV that aren't selling or taking away from ICE, it would be better.

That's an assumption though, not sure it's an accurate one.

[JLee]

It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.

It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.

in a vacuum yes but the car is now out there and available on the second hand market so society will experience these benefits long term.  Also MMMers will buy used EVs as they already do.

Of course. However, the context of my original quote focused on rental companies buying new Teslas. They're not buying used, and they're not MMMers. From a business perspective, I'm not sure that they'll see much if any cost savings unless they plan to alter their model. Like I've said a few times already, I think lower depreciation might be a pretty significant component in the math for these rental agencies. More than charging costs or decreased maintenance. But that advantage might be eroded when they're throwing 20-30k Model 3s onto the used vehicle market every year with 25-30k miles. That's great for MMMers that might benefit from lower used EV prices, but increases depreciation.

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

I'm curious to see the long term depreciation for Model 3s -- I checked one of those online wholesale buy-my-car-now sites, they (carbuyerusa.com) offered more for my Model 3 Long Range (purchased March 2020) than I paid for it new.

[neo von retorch]

I'm curious to see the long term depreciation for Model 3s -- I checked one of those online wholesale buy-my-car-now sites, they (carbuyerusa.com) offered more for my Model 3 Long Range (purchased March 2020) than I paid for it new.

I would just be careful trying to extrapolate the information, or rather, assigning it specifically to the model of your car. In general any used car has an inflated value right now, regardless of the make or powertrain.

[StashingAway]

More than charging costs or decreased maintenance. But that advantage might be eroded when they're throwing 20-30k Model 3s onto the used vehicle market every year with 25-30k miles. That's great for MMMers that might benefit from lower used EV prices, but increases depreciation.

I guess these are all hypothesis. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out for Hertz.

There are a assumptions in both of our points- assumptions on mileage that rentals are sold, assumptions on rental fleet maintenance and repair cost, etc. Perhaps the increased safety of model 3's will reduce their insurance overhead. But the emissions impact of the EV doesn't end once it's sold from the rental. Presumably it's still driven (many) miles afterward, making it still a much higher overall benefit than an ICE. We aren't concerned about impact for the first owner, we are concerned about lifetime impact.

[JLee]

I'm curious to see the long term depreciation for Model 3s -- I checked one of those online wholesale buy-my-car-now sites, they (carbuyerusa.com) offered more for my Model 3 Long Range (purchased March 2020) than I paid for it new.

I would just be careful trying to extrapolate the information, or rather, assigning it specifically to the model of your car. In general any used car has an inflated value right now, regardless of the make or powertrain.

It's exaggerated now, but it's always been the case.  People upgrade cars for new features, new looks, etc, and a normal person would not be able to tell the difference between a 2018 and a 2022.  It's mostly software that all cars get, so the actual changes are small.

The reason I bought new was because it was about the same cost as new, and that was pre-pandemic (I actually picked up my car the day my employer announced WFH).

[GodlessCommie]

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)

The biggest factor in favor of PHEVs is that most manufacturers are constrained by the supply of batteries. You can build several PHEVs for each BEV you forgo. The second biggest is that they don't require fast-charging infrastructure.

The negative is, obviously, cost and complexity. You have to have two powertrains, and you can't skip ICE maintenance - although, judging by Prius' longevity, you can expect lower repair cost down the road.

[boarder42]

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)

The biggest factor in favor of PHEVs is that most manufacturers are constrained by the supply of batteries. You can build several PHEVs for each BEV you forgo. The second biggest is that they don't require fast-charging infrastructure.

The negative is, obviously, cost and complexity. You have to have two powertrains, and you can't skip ICE maintenance - although, judging by Prius' longevity, you can expect lower repair cost down the road.

and you're missing the big picture - most of the time our older cars end up in 3rd world countries still polluting.  So while it may make sense today to do this to decrease emissions faster short term does it really help long term?  Having a supply chain issue to get BEVs on the road causes more people to solve those issues pushing more EVs to market long term and getting rid of combustion all together.

[Paper Chaser]

If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.

That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)

For example, if over the next year 5 million vehicles will be purchased that are either ICE, PHEV or EV.

PHEV environment impact is 1.0 Enviromental Improvement Units.
EV environment impact is 1.5 EIU
All ICE are 0.0 EIU. (Or negative...)

Obviously ideal is 5 million EV.

But if EV cost 15% more than PHEV (according to consumer appetites) and 25% more than ICE, then EVs will appeal to less consumers.

This is all worse than terrible back of the napkin math. One would hope Toyota and VW and Ford and GM are doing a little more concrete math... and market research (They likely only care about EIU as a selling feature.)

At any rate, if you can sell 50/50 PHEV/EV on 1 million units (the other 4 million go to ICE), you've managed 1.25 million EIU.
60/40 PHEV/EV => 1.2 m EIU. (But 40/60 PHEV/EV => 1.3m EIU)
But 60/40 PHEV/EV and you get 1.2 million units => 1.44m EIU so yeah if you are selling more PHEV/EV and less ICE, compared to just EV that aren't selling or taking away from ICE, it would be better.

That's an assumption though, not sure it's an accurate one.

But you can't make equal numbers of BEVs and PHEVs right now. Battery supply is the biggest constraint from the manufacturing side, and range anxiety is probably the most common concern from mainstream buyers on the purchasing side. PHEVs help both and result in more environmental gain and increased rate of adoption.

Consider the following theoretical scenario: If you're society and you've got enough materials to make 85kwh of battery (Common Tesla size), but want to get the most environmental benefit out of that limited resource, what's the best option?

You can put that into a single EV (like a Tesla Model 3) and get 300-350 miles of range. Reality is that there's a lot of excess battery capacity for most people's daily needs just along for the ride. If the average American drives 12k miles per year, then the single EV gets society the environmental benefits of electric driving for all of those 12k miles with this approach. Sales are hampered somewhat (rightfully or not) by range anxiety among mainstream buyers.

Alternatively, society could choose to split up that 85kwh of battery capacity equally into 5 PHEVs. Each would have 40-50 miles of all-electric range from a 17kwh pack, and it would likely get 45+mpg operating as a normal hybrid the rest of the time. That 40-50 miles of all electric range would probably cover 75% or more of most people's daily drive (I'd wager actual study would find that much more than 75% of people's driving could be done with 40-50miles of EV range, but lets be conservative here). Again, we take the average American use case of 12k miles annually and if 75% of that is done as an EV we get 9k EV miles driven for each of the 5 PHEVs for a total of 45k miles of EV propulsion benefits. That's nearly 4 times the environmental benefit of the single EV from the same amount of limited resources. That gain is compounded every year too. After 2 average years, our single EV has done 24k miles under electric propulsion, while our 5 PHEVs have driven 90k miles on electrons. After 5 years, the combined PHEVs have done 225k EV miles while the single EV has done 60k. And these vehicles have no range anxiety slowing buyers down, which theoretically increases the likelihood that Average Joe is willing to try something new and buy one.

[Chris22]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

[boarder42]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

[Chris22]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

[Paper Chaser]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

Even if existing vehicles get pushed to 3rd world countries, it could be a net gain if they're replacing older, dirtier vehicles. Roughly 1/3 of US housing units lack a garage, which means they probably lack a consistent place to charge an EV or PHEV. That's not accounting for different duty cycles that may not work with BEVs. Point being that we've still got a long way to go in the US before EVs are universal. They may never be. 3rd world nations will be even longer off before they've got the infrastructure to support full electrification. If our adoption of PHEVs and BEVs pushes current ICEs to other nations, they're probably replacing dirtier older vehicles so it might still be a net gain. By that same token, if every BEV sold in the US sends one 15 year old Camry to a 3rd world country, and every PHEV sends the same Camry to the same location you'd still see more impact per given amount of resources from the larger number of PHEVs that can be made vs BEVs.

[JLee]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022.  People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.

[BicycleB]

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

By the time they're in 3rd world countries, might they be replacing fossil powered vehicles there and thus still reducing emissions?

[Chris22]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022.  People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.

You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today).  See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.

[boarder42]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022.  People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.

You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today).  See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.

wait you mean to tell me the avg US consumer isnt interested in a tiny box on wheels who would have thought?  Its not the EV portion of the car driving lack of demand for those its b/c its not a big ass truck or SUV.

[JLee]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022.  People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.

You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today).  See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.

Tesla had 79.4% of the EV market in the US in 2020.

To be clear, nearly 80% of the market is supply constrained by two to eight months and you think we should just ignore that as an irrelevant factor?

[Chris22]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.


*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.

baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries.  sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.

BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.

Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022.  People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.

You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today).  See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.

Tesla had 79.4% of the EV market in the US in 2020.

To be clear, nearly 80% of the market is supply constrained by two to eight months and you think we should just ignore that as an irrelevant factor?

I don't think I said to ignore it, I said you need to consider it differently. Said another way, of the people in the market for EVs, 80% only want a Tesla. Do they want a Tesla because it’s an EV, or because Teslas are fashionable? 

[GodlessCommie]

and you're missing the big picture - most of the time our older cars end up in 3rd world countries still polluting.  So while it may make sense today to do this to decrease emissions faster short term does it really help long term?  Having a supply chain issue to get BEVs on the road causes more people to solve those issues pushing more EVs to market long term and getting rid of combustion all together.

Same logic: we make fewer electrified cars by going full EV, thus making more gas cars. Those gas cars end up in the third world and continue polluting. Only they pollute 100% of the time, while PHEV pollute ~10% of the time.

[GodlessCommie]

Do they want a Tesla because it’s an EV, or because Teslas are fashionable?

Or because it's the only brand that has access to the only usable nation-wide fast charging network, thus making moot the dreaded range anxiety concern.

Or a combination thereof.

[boarder42]

and you're missing the big picture - most of the time our older cars end up in 3rd world countries still polluting.  So while it may make sense today to do this to decrease emissions faster short term does it really help long term?  Having a supply chain issue to get BEVs on the road causes more people to solve those issues pushing more EVs to market long term and getting rid of combustion all together.

Same logic: we make fewer electrified cars by going full EV, thus making more gas cars. Those gas cars end up in the third world and continue polluting. Only they pollute 100% of the time, while PHEV pollute ~10% of the time.

PHEV in a 3rd world country is a gas car with extra battery and electric motor weight.

[StashingAway]

100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.

PHEV's don't make sense in a lot of applications though.

Chrystler Pacifica. PHEV with 30 miles of range. But gets 30mpg on the highway.
Toyota Sienna Hybrid. 36mpg highway.
Cost difference: $10K (in favor of Sienna)

Jeep Wrangler 4xe PHEV. 30 miles electric range. 20mpg
Jeep Wrangler 2.0L turbo. 23mpg.
Cost difference: $19K

That cost is all in the batteries, same for the MPG hit from the extra weight. What I'm saying is, I'd rather have the Sienna or 2.0L and a couple of e-bikes. Would still be using less resources overall. Would be cheaper. And for long trips (what I'd want a minivan for), better highway MPGs for the vehicle. Or trips with more than one person.

PHEV's are great for many use cases, but they're arguably the worst of both worlds. It all depends on what is being done.

[Chris22]

It is very situational. If you spend a lot of time on the highway, yes, a Chrysler Pacifica doesn’t make a ton of sense. If your minivan stays close to home doing the in-town thing, and you almost never use gas, the highway mpgs are irrelevant. And I question whether your $10k difference is comparing like vs like for trim levels, and it doesn’t take into account the $7500 tax credit on the PHEV.

For the Wrangler, I have one, and I know your $19k difference isn’t like for like. When equipped the same, the PHEV Wrangler is actually a little cheaper than the pure gas model after the tax credit is considered. I think my Rubicon model would have been $2-3k more expensive if you went option by option versus ICE after the tax credit. Wrangler PHEVs are only available on the top three trim levels of the Wrangler, you’re comparing a high trim level to the cheapest lowest Wrangler with no power windows, door locks, etc. And again, almost all of my daily driving is done on battery power. I only use gas on long trips, where the most 3mpg doesn’t bother me since I don’t use any gas the rest of the time.

[gooki]

PHEVs are great for one car families, but there's a very limited window where they will be cheaper than long range BEVs.

In my local country it's highly likely both the RAV4 Prime and Tesla Model Y will have the same price when they enter the market.

[JLee]

Do they want a Tesla because it’s an EV, or because Teslas are fashionable?

Or because it's the only brand that has access to the only usable nation-wide fast charging network, thus making moot the dreaded range anxiety concern.

Or a combination thereof.

Yup.  Also there just isn't an whole lot of competition in the 300+ mile EPA range segment, though that is slowly changing.

[gooki]

Or do they want a Tesla because it's the best car you can get for the money.

[LennStar]

Or do they want a Tesla because it's the best car you can get for the money.

Tesla always end up at the real bottom of quality. I doubt that it is the best deal.

[gooki]

And the top for customer satisfaction.

I suggest you dig deeper into the qualify reports. It all minor stuff on the Model 3.

[boarder42]

And the top for customer satisfaction.

I suggest you dig deeper into the qualify reports. It all minor stuff on the Model 3.

agreed add to it their FSD thats years ahead of the competition maybe a decade.  And thats what really gives TSLA its value if they are first to market with FSD and get approval and sell it.  You've got a really high income producing service to offer your competition.

[StashingAway]

For the Wrangler, I have one, and I know your $19k difference isn’t like for like. When equipped the same, the PHEV Wrangler is actually a little cheaper than the pure gas model after the tax credit is considered. I think my Rubicon model would have been $2-3k more expensive if you went option by option versus ICE after the tax credit. Wrangler PHEVs are only available on the top three trim levels of the Wrangler, you’re comparing a high trim level to the cheapest lowest Wrangler with no power windows, door locks, etc. And again, almost all of my daily driving is done on battery power. I only use gas on long trips, where the most 3mpg doesn’t bother me since I don’t use any gas the rest of the time.

Even if they were the same price, I'd want 2.0L Wrangler. It's lighter weight (better for off roading), slightly less complicated, better highway mpgs, etc.

It makes sense if you daily drive your Wrangler or Pacifica (and in the Pacifica's case I can see it happening)... but I still stand by my conjecture that in the big picture. There's no reason to daily drive a gas powered vehicle. PHEV's are overall the worst of both worlds (but an acceptable stop gap)

[neo von retorch]

It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.

They have solid driver-assist technology.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/10/report-tesla-autopilot-has-best-performance-gm-super-cruise-is-safest/

esla's Autopilot came in second place—a "distant second" according to Consumer Reports. The group says it saw "minor improvements in lane keeping performance" from Tesla's offering since the system was last evaluated in 2018.

Those minor improvements were enough for Autopilot to get the top spot in the "lane keeping and performance" category of CR's report. CR ranked Autopilot 9/10 for performance, while Super Cruise scored 8/10. Tesla also got top marks for Autopilot's ease of use.

...

GM took a safety-first approach in designing Super Cruise.

...

By contrast, Tesla has prioritized driver convenience and autonomy Editor's Note: of the car, not the driver.

...

So while winning the overall ranking is undoubtedly good for GM, Consumer Reports' results won't do anything to dampen the enthusiasm of Tesla fans who find aggressive driver monitoring systems annoying.

It doesn't sound like Tesla has a clear lead in FSD, so much as they are perfectly fine enabling it, even if it deprioritizes safety. I think GM understands that things like recalls (d'oh, the Bolt!) and image are key in trying to sell new technology to existing car buyers. Tesla still has a seemingly unshakeable following in their fan base, despite some safety and quality control issues.

Of course, I hate getting dragged into the weeds, because I still believe the end game for EV conversion is healthy competition and consumer choice. (And also, in the weeds, people bicker back and forth over what is largely opinion and speculation.) So while I think Tesla has done great things, and makes very nice cars (even if I don't personally love their styling or interior design choices), I have to vote with my dollars against them as long as they have proprietary charging networks and touch-based controls where I want my buttons and knobs (and get off my lawn).

Tesla is doing something very important, though. They are making money selling just EVs. The big players have begrudgingly noticed this, and they are, at varying rates, including more EVs in their roadmaps. They are figuring out how to make money selling EVs. If nothing changed going forward, it could easily become "the big three", being Tesla, Ford and VW. But it's much too soon to tell who will execute well enough going forward, how much government will help or hinder adoption, and who will produce in sufficient quantity the popular breakaway hits of the next ten years.

[boarder42]

It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.

They have solid driver-assist technology.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/10/report-tesla-autopilot-has-best-performance-gm-super-cruise-is-safest/

esla's Autopilot came in second place—a "distant second" according to Consumer Reports. The group says it saw "minor improvements in lane keeping performance" from Tesla's offering since the system was last evaluated in 2018.

Those minor improvements were enough for Autopilot to get the top spot in the "lane keeping and performance" category of CR's report. CR ranked Autopilot 9/10 for performance, while Super Cruise scored 8/10. Tesla also got top marks for Autopilot's ease of use.

...

GM took a safety-first approach in designing Super Cruise.

...

By contrast, Tesla has prioritized driver convenience and autonomy Editor's Note: of the car, not the driver.

...

So while winning the overall ranking is undoubtedly good for GM, Consumer Reports' results won't do anything to dampen the enthusiasm of Tesla fans who find aggressive driver monitoring systems annoying.

It doesn't sound like Tesla has a clear lead in FSD, so much as they are perfectly fine enabling it, even if it deprioritizes safety. I think GM understands that things like recalls (d'oh, the Bolt!) and image are key in trying to sell new technology to existing car buyers. Tesla still has a seemingly unshakeable following in their fan base, despite some safety and quality control issues.

Of course, I hate getting dragged into the weeds, because I still believe the end game for EV conversion is healthy competition and consumer choice. (And also, in the weeds, people bicker back and forth over what is largely opinion and speculation.) So while I think Tesla has done great things, and makes very nice cars (even if I don't personally love their styling or interior design choices), I have to vote with my dollars against them as long as they have proprietary charging networks and touch-based controls where I want my buttons and knobs (and get off my lawn).

Tesla is doing something very important, though. They are making money selling just EVs. The big players have begrudgingly noticed this, and they are, at varying rates, including more EVs in their roadmaps. They are figuring out how to make money selling EVs. If nothing changed going forward, it could easily become "the big three", being Tesla, Ford and VW. But it's much too soon to tell who will execute well enough going forward, how much government will help or hinder adoption, and who will produce in sufficient quantity the popular breakaway hits of the next ten years.

you're not comparing apples to apples tesla has a clear lead with FSD you're comparing a system thats being told how the roads are to a system thats seeing the roads and reacting more like a human.  autopilot hasnt been tesla's focus for a while - while GM's cruise is supposed to compete with FSD but its being compared to autopilot which is just a bit of a glorified cruise control with features most automakers can do today. 

[JLee]

Or do they want a Tesla because it's the best car you can get for the money.

Tesla always end up at the real bottom of quality. I doubt that it is the best deal.

Watch some of Sandy's videos - Tesla is way ahead of the game.  There's more to a car than panel gaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1kHsd3Ocxc

If you're not willing to watch the entire video, watch from the 10 minute mark to about 11:30.

[Paper Chaser]

It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.

It just comes down to money. $/kwh is only now coming down enough to make financial sense for mature automakers. GM was paying $145/kwh for Bolt batteries:


GM was losing money (some estimates say $4k loss) on every Bolt they sold:

https://www.hotcars.com/gm-admits-bolt-not-profitable/

It made more business sense to just keep cranking out Silverados and Buick CUVs with much better margins. If they had wanted to sell a lot of EVs, GM probably wouldn't have chosen a small hatchback (a rapidly shrinking market segment), and they would've made more than 20-30k of them per year. The Bolt existed to expand their EV knowledge while making them compliant with emissions/fuel economy regulations where applicable. It doesn't seem like they ever intended to sell very many of them or start some EV revolution.

It actually turns out that GM's predictions for $/kwh in that old slide above are right on track. Battery prices are now down to about $100/kwh, which is why you're seeing more EVs, in more desirable body types from GM as well as other automakers.

[boarder42]

It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.

It just comes down to money. $/kwh is only now coming down enough to make financial sense for mature automakers. GM was paying $145/kwh for Bolt batteries:


GM was losing money (some estimates say $4k loss) on every Bolt they sold:

https://www.hotcars.com/gm-admits-bolt-not-profitable/

It made more business sense to just keep cranking out Silverados and Buick CUVs with much better margins. If they had wanted to sell a lot of EVs, GM probably wouldn't have chosen a small hatchback (a rapidly shrinking market segment), and they would've made more than 20-30k of them per year. The Bolt existed to expand their EV knowledge while making them compliant with emissions/fuel economy regulations where applicable. It doesn't seem like they ever intended to sell very many of them or start some EV revolution.

It actually turns out that GM's predictions for $/kwh in that old slide above are right on track. Battery prices are now down to about $100/kwh, which is why you're seeing more EVs, in more desirable body types from GM as well as other automakers.

correct this is the catalyst for the EV revolution b/c economics is such a big play in the world of adoption.

[Chris22]

For the Wrangler, I have one, and I know your $19k difference isn’t like for like. When equipped the same, the PHEV Wrangler is actually a little cheaper than the pure gas model after the tax credit is considered. I think my Rubicon model would have been $2-3k more expensive if you went option by option versus ICE after the tax credit. Wrangler PHEVs are only available on the top three trim levels of the Wrangler, you’re comparing a high trim level to the cheapest lowest Wrangler with no power windows, door locks, etc. And again, almost all of my daily driving is done on battery power. I only use gas on long trips, where the most 3mpg doesn’t bother me since I don’t use any gas the rest of the time.

Even if they were the same price, I'd want 2.0L Wrangler. It's lighter weight (better for off roading), slightly less complicated, better highway mpgs, etc.

The type of off-roading I do weight doesn’t matter that much, I’m not doing extreme rock crawling. And the weight actually settles it down quite a bit on the highway, it rides, tracks, and steers much better than my 2018 Wrangler (3.6L Sport) ever did.

It makes sense if you daily drive your Wrangler or Pacifica (and in the Pacifica's case I can see it happening)... but I still stand by my conjecture that in the big picture. There's no reason to daily drive a gas powered vehicle. PHEV's are overall the worst of both worlds (but an acceptable stop gap)

PHEVs work great for people who aren’t interested in having a different car for different purposes. It’s not more wasteful to drive a PHEV as an only vehicle than it is to have two vehicles, one BEV for commuting and one ICE vehicle for longer distances. My PHEV is perfect for my lifestyle where I drive 10-15 miles on EV power most days and then take it on a 700-800 mile road trip once every month or two.