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

[Just Joe]

Wow - DW spoke to her parents and mentioned we bought another car. When asked what it was DW replied "Kona Electric". Her parent reacted excitedly to the car news and downright sour and negative about the electric part.

DW told me she should have never mentioned the electric part. Instead just shared the news that is was "x" color and cute. She said it was a harsh reminder of her parents' outlook on many topics (i.e. staunchly conservative). She did not intend to ever seek their approval of the car we chose. The fact that it is electric is but a minor detail. DW was just sharing our family news.

As often happens her parent's critical opinion was bolstered by "well, they say..." DW did gently remind her parent that many of the people with the loudest opinions had neither owned nor driven an EV. And some of the critics could profit the most from any delayed penetration into the car market by EVs.

DW finished the call upset. Not just about the car but how her family remains so connected to rumor, social media and the 24 hour conservative news outlets. It will probably put a chill on this weekend's visit - again.

She told me "they were never like this when she was growing up."

Just another anecdote about things which might delay the adoption of electric cars in the USA. FUD...

[Just Joe]

In other news I think I'm seeing more low profile EVs in our smallish town. Saw an Ioniq 5. Mini EV. Fiat 500e. Two Rivians. The usual Teslas. Saw a guy loading groceries in a Leaf SV Plus. And saw a different Leaf SV Plus in traffic the same day. On a trip to the big metro we saw 10+ Rivian Amazon vans departing a warehouse for deliveries.

No big deal in other places but its kind of a big deal here. (Red state)

[NorCal]

Wow - DW spoke to her parents and mentioned we bought another car. When asked what it was DW replied "Kona Electric". Her parent reacted excitedly to the car news and downright sour and negative about the electric part.

DW told me she should have never mentioned the electric part. Instead just shared the news that is was "x" color and cute. She said it was a harsh reminder of her parents' outlook on many topics (i.e. staunchly conservative). She did not intend to ever seek their approval of the car we chose. The fact that it is electric is but a minor detail. DW was just sharing our family news.

As often happens her parent's critical opinion was bolstered by "well, they say..." DW did gently remind her parent that many of the people with the loudest opinions had neither owned nor driven an EV. And some of the critics could profit the most from any delayed penetration into the car market by EVs.

DW finished the call upset. Not just about the car but how her family remains so connected to rumor, social media and the 24 hour conservative news outlets. It will probably put a chill on this weekend's visit - again.

She told me "they were never like this when she was growing up."

Just another anecdote about things which might delay the adoption of electric cars in the USA. FUD...

The smart and rational thing to do is to just ignore what naysayers like that have to say.

But sometimes life is more fun not taking the smart and rational path.  I like your approach from a few posts up about casually mentioning things that you did with your EV just as someone is mentioning how impossible that is.  Consider it motivation for an epic road trip at some point in your future. 

I live in a neighborhood where EV's are ubiquitous, so I mostly have conversations with people that are curious because they're thinking of getting one.

I do enjoy conversations with people that haven't been exposed to EV's.  Even those people that are skeptical of them.  I once had a guy come up to me to talk about my truck.  I'd say he was aggressively skeptical about EV's, but also genuinely curious about them too.  We had a good conversation.  I didn't quite convince him it would work at -27F out, because I had only driven at -10F.  But I think he came away with a little more knowledge and a little less skepticism.  I appreciated talking to someone outside of my own online confirmation bias bubble.   

[Paper Chaser]

I think you've gotten the two values confused a bit. Value #1 is correct. Getting rich through frugality is a huge part of this. But  I'd say that value #2 is actually 'Stop destroying our environment by reducing consumption'. And with that simple addition, the two values are back in alignment with one another again. By reducing your consumption, you not only enhance frugality, but you also help the environment.

You can clean up consumption (which is what EVs and solar panels and heat pumps do), but all of those things have an up front environmental cost that takes a whole lot of consumption to overcome before they become a net benefit. And if you consume very little in the first place, then making all of those green, efficient new products takes a lifetime to pay off.

I agree, 100%.  But here's the problem.  Reducing our use of fossil fuels is not enough.  Only getting rid of fossil fuels completely solves the problem (CO2 emissions).  That's not free. 

So, in this case, saving the environment cannot be done by reducing consumption.  Only by switching from one system (fossil fuels) to a different system (renewable) can it be solved.  And that switch is not free.

I like EVs because they improve air quality from a lack of tailpipe emissions, and that helps people (no smog/particulates). I like that theoretically, they could last longer, and require less maintenance/replacement than the ICEs that we've had for a very long time (financial and environmental benefits). But I find it really hard to feel compelled to switch completely for climate reasons when the leaders of our society aren't really doing so.
- It's 2024, and many of us have Zoom calls all the time, but our political leaders all take private jets with huge security/support teams to in-person meetings in Davos or wherever to have these climate summits. And while they're rubbing elbows they try to figure out ways clean up our consumption by making/selling us new products instead of simply incentivizing less consumption, because that might hurt the economy of wherever they're from.
- Elon's private jet flies across LA to avoid traffic, or between his multiple homes in LA/TX. And instead of making more, cheaper EVs to increase adoption he's selling dystopian, bulletproof trucks with enormous batteries or developing flamethrowers while he demands the highest payday in human history.
- Taylor Swift has 50+ semis hauling her tour equipment around the world 24/7 while she does hundreds of thousands of miles of private air travel each year. Sometimes just to see her boyfriend's sports event which can simply be watched on TV.
- The world's militaries only seem to be escalating, and they're not particularly concerned with any of this climate business as they battle over resources.

Nobody at the top seems to really care enough about this climate emergency to truly change their behavior. None of them seem serious about making the situation better. There's too much money to be made.

It's fine if anybody here does feel like they need to make a change for the better good. But I hope that they actually consider that all of these clean technologies actively make the climate problem worse when they're manufactured, packaged, shipped, installed, and maintained. They only begin to help after they've been used, and they often have to be used quite a lot before their initial footprint can be offset.

[NorCal]

I think you've gotten the two values confused a bit. Value #1 is correct. Getting rich through frugality is a huge part of this. But  I'd say that value #2 is actually 'Stop destroying our environment by reducing consumption'. And with that simple addition, the two values are back in alignment with one another again. By reducing your consumption, you not only enhance frugality, but you also help the environment.

You can clean up consumption (which is what EVs and solar panels and heat pumps do), but all of those things have an up front environmental cost that takes a whole lot of consumption to overcome before they become a net benefit. And if you consume very little in the first place, then making all of those green, efficient new products takes a lifetime to pay off.

I agree, 100%.  But here's the problem.  Reducing our use of fossil fuels is not enough.  Only getting rid of fossil fuels completely solves the problem (CO2 emissions).  That's not free. 

So, in this case, saving the environment cannot be done by reducing consumption.  Only by switching from one system (fossil fuels) to a different system (renewable) can it be solved.  And that switch is not free.

I like EVs because they improve air quality from a lack of tailpipe emissions, and that helps people (no smog/particulates). I like that theoretically, they could last longer, and require less maintenance/replacement than the ICEs that we've had for a very long time (financial and environmental benefits). But I find it really hard to feel compelled to switch completely for climate reasons when the leaders of our society aren't really doing so.
- It's 2024, and many of us have Zoom calls all the time, but our political leaders all take private jets with huge security/support teams to in-person meetings in Davos or wherever to have these climate summits. And while they're rubbing elbows they try to figure out ways clean up our consumption by making/selling us new products instead of simply incentivizing less consumption, because that might hurt the economy of wherever they're from.
- Elon's private jet flies across LA to avoid traffic, or between his multiple homes in LA/TX. And instead of making more, cheaper EVs to increase adoption he's selling dystopian, bulletproof trucks with enormous batteries or developing flamethrowers while he demands the highest payday in human history.
- Taylor Swift has 50+ semis hauling her tour equipment around the world 24/7 while she does hundreds of thousands of miles of private air travel each year. Sometimes just to see her boyfriend's sports event which can simply be watched on TV.
- The world's militaries only seem to be escalating, and they're not particularly concerned with any of this climate business as they battle over resources.

Nobody at the top seems to really care enough about this climate emergency to truly change their behavior. None of them seem serious about making the situation better. There's too much money to be made.

It's fine if anybody here does feel like they need to make a change for the better good. But I hope that they actually consider that all of these clean technologies actively make the climate problem worse when they're manufactured, packaged, shipped, installed, and maintained. They only begin to help after they've been used, and they often have to be used quite a lot before their initial footprint can be offset.

I agree with the above, but come to a different conclusion.  With the exception about the military caring, but that's an entirely separate tangent.  The pool of people that will change individual behavior for a nebulous public good (of which most don't understand) is pretty small.

Climate change can only be dealt with when there's systematic change.  Things like pricing emissions, banning certain technologies, subsidies, and various regulatory regimes can all be used.  I'm personally a fan of carbon pricing, but I recognize reality will involve a mixture of different approaches.

But you can't go out on Day #1, legislate zero emissions by 2050 and be done with public policy.  That's not how public policy works.  You also can't really tell a whole country they have to get rid of their cars and force people to ride bikes.  Infrastructure design can be changed to encourage such behavior though.

The path to systematic change involves intermediate steps and various inflection points.  Getting to these points will make bigger things possible, and is consistent with the path that public policy actually follows.  The "big solution" type public policy is out of reach for now.  Here's a few things that are in reach, and individuals can influence to some degree:

1. Make people less afraid of climate solutions.  Most climate solutions involve changes to commercial/industrial behavior.  Most people vote against climate solutions because they're afraid environmentalists will force them to drive an eco-weinie vehicle (their words) and take away their gas stove.  People that get over these fears will no longer advocate against broader solutions.  This is why it's so important to talk to people outside of your normal demographic circle.

2. Broaden the groups of people that care about climate change.  We don't really need more upper middle class college educated voters to get engaged about climate change.  We need farmers and ranchers to care.  We need the people with homes in disaster-prone areas to care.  Getting a broader set of groups on board will make solutions easier to come by.

3. Public policy largely follows employment.  Find ways to increase employment in areas of climate solutions, while decreasing employment in the hydrocarbon industries.  This is where consumer dollars matter.  In particular, if we could reduce the number of congressional districts with heavy oil & gas employment by maybe 10%ish, that would make a huge difference for public policy.  If we could increase the number of congressional districts with major climate-solution employment (particularly manufacturing) by maybe 20%, that would make a huge difference.

[Just Joe]

I do enjoy conversations with people that haven't been exposed to EV's.  Even those people that are skeptical of them.  I once had a guy come up to me to talk about my truck.  I'd say he was aggressively skeptical about EV's, but also genuinely curious about them too.  We had a good conversation.  I didn't quite convince him it would work at -27F out, because I had only driven at -10F.  But I think he came away with a little more knowledge and a little less skepticism.  I appreciated talking to someone outside of my own online confirmation bias bubble.   

Actually I love those kinds of conversations whether I'm teaching or learning or both. Its part of why these forums have been so great.

Around here among some people that we know or are related to, it's all about the the culture war topics at times. It can be tiring.

In other news I did a 100 mile trip this morn to complete an task. The EV was really a nice drive.

[Just Joe]

I think you've gotten the two values confused a bit. Value #1 is correct. Getting rich through frugality is a huge part of this. But  I'd say that value #2 is actually 'Stop destroying our environment by reducing consumption'. And with that simple addition, the two values are back in alignment with one another again. By reducing your consumption, you not only enhance frugality, but you also help the environment.

You can clean up consumption (which is what EVs and solar panels and heat pumps do), but all of those things have an up front environmental cost that takes a whole lot of consumption to overcome before they become a net benefit. And if you consume very little in the first place, then making all of those green, efficient new products takes a lifetime to pay off.

I agree, 100%.  But here's the problem.  Reducing our use of fossil fuels is not enough.  Only getting rid of fossil fuels completely solves the problem (CO2 emissions).  That's not free. 

So, in this case, saving the environment cannot be done by reducing consumption.  Only by switching from one system (fossil fuels) to a different system (renewable) can it be solved.  And that switch is not free.

I like EVs because they improve air quality from a lack of tailpipe emissions, and that helps people (no smog/particulates). I like that theoretically, they could last longer, and require less maintenance/replacement than the ICEs that we've had for a very long time (financial and environmental benefits). But I find it really hard to feel compelled to switch completely for climate reasons when the leaders of our society aren't really doing so.
- It's 2024, and many of us have Zoom calls all the time, but our political leaders all take private jets with huge security/support teams to in-person meetings in Davos or wherever to have these climate summits. And while they're rubbing elbows they try to figure out ways clean up our consumption by making/selling us new products instead of simply incentivizing less consumption, because that might hurt the economy of wherever they're from.
- Elon's private jet flies across LA to avoid traffic, or between his multiple homes in LA/TX. And instead of making more, cheaper EVs to increase adoption he's selling dystopian, bulletproof trucks with enormous batteries or developing flamethrowers while he demands the highest payday in human history.
- Taylor Swift has 50+ semis hauling her tour equipment around the world 24/7 while she does hundreds of thousands of miles of private air travel each year. Sometimes just to see her boyfriend's sports event which can simply be watched on TV.
- The world's militaries only seem to be escalating, and they're not particularly concerned with any of this climate business as they battle over resources.

Nobody at the top seems to really care enough about this climate emergency to truly change their behavior. None of them seem serious about making the situation better. There's too much money to be made.

It's fine if anybody here does feel like they need to make a change for the better good. But I hope that they actually consider that all of these clean technologies actively make the climate problem worse when they're manufactured, packaged, shipped, installed, and maintained. They only begin to help after they've been used, and they often have to be used quite a lot before their initial footprint can be offset.

You aren't wrong. We make our choices to fit our needs first (financial, health, etc) but we also try to purchase efficiency and durability when it is time to buy a durable good. We also try to stay closer to home than some. Works for us but not for everyone. That's okay.

Circles of control and all that. We don't fund Musk or Swift. Can't do much about the rest.

[NorCal]

I do enjoy conversations with people that haven't been exposed to EV's.  Even those people that are skeptical of them.  I once had a guy come up to me to talk about my truck.  I'd say he was aggressively skeptical about EV's, but also genuinely curious about them too.  We had a good conversation.  I didn't quite convince him it would work at -27F out, because I had only driven at -10F.  But I think he came away with a little more knowledge and a little less skepticism.  I appreciated talking to someone outside of my own online confirmation bias bubble.   

Actually I love those kinds of conversations whether I'm teaching or learning or both. Its part of why these forums have been so great.

Around here among some people that we know or are related to, it's all about the the culture war topics at times. It can be tiring.

In other news I did a 100 mile trip this morn to complete an task. The EV was really a nice drive.

One of my favorites is when people ask me how much it costs to drive. I give them the $0.06 to $0.07 per mile based on our residential billing rates.

I’ll then do the comparable math on their car. I inevitably ask “what’s the price of gas these days?  I don’t pay attention to that anymore”.

This simple statement gets more surprised looks than anything else I can say about EV’s. The idea that someone doesn’t know or care about the price of gas is just such a crazy concept to most drivers.

[nereo]

... I inevitably ask “what’s the price of gas these days?  I don’t pay attention to that anymore”.

This simple statement gets more surprised looks than anything else I can say about EV’s. The idea that someone doesn’t know or care about the price of gas is just such a crazy concept to most drivers.

Just the volatility of the cost of gasoline is noteworthy.  In the last 3 years the national average pump price has gone from $3.02 to just over $5/gal.  Makes it much harder to predict the operational costs.

[Tyson]

... I inevitably ask “what’s the price of gas these days?  I don’t pay attention to that anymore”.

This simple statement gets more surprised looks than anything else I can say about EV’s. The idea that someone doesn’t know or care about the price of gas is just such a crazy concept to most drivers.

Just the volatility of the cost of gasoline is noteworthy.  In the last 3 years the national average pump price has gone from $3.02 to just over $5/gal.  Makes it much harder to predict the operational costs.

All the more reason to move away from gas entirely.

[JLee]

... I inevitably ask “what’s the price of gas these days?  I don’t pay attention to that anymore”.

This simple statement gets more surprised looks than anything else I can say about EV’s. The idea that someone doesn’t know or care about the price of gas is just such a crazy concept to most drivers.

Just the volatility of the cost of gasoline is noteworthy.  In the last 3 years the national average pump price has gone from $3.02 to just over $5/gal.  Makes it much harder to predict the operational costs.

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

[AlanStache]

...
I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

Expect a price spike not long before the next national election :-/

[nereo]

...
I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

Expect a price spike not long before the next national election :-/

Why would there be a spike? There hasn’t been a correlation between shifts in gasoline prices and national elections in the past - what makes this year different?

[RWD]

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

And I remember paying $1/gallon shortly after I got my driver's license (circa 2002). From that starting point you'd expect gas to still be under $2/gallon today after inflation.

[AlanStache]

...
Expect a price spike not long before the next national election :-/

Why would there be a spike? There hasn’t been a correlation between shifts in gasoline prices and national elections in the past - what makes this year different?
[/quote]

Thought that happened last time, started googling it and realized I did not really care enough to read results.  Probably half result of FIRE - just cant be bothered with such things anymore to much good stuff in life - will shift the concept to the "might be true, or might not be, or might be an over simplification" bucket in my brain, unless someone corroborates it.    :-)   

Odd thing about averaging less than one fill up per month now you dont really follow the prices at all.  Heck even when I drove a lot more having a savings rate above 50% puts fill ups of a small car in to the financial noise. 

[NorCal]

Not EV related, but one of the underappreciated aspects of solar and wind is that they are the most inflation proof form of energy ever invented.

Once a solar panel or wind turbine is installed, it produces energy at roughly the same cost for 25-30 years. There’s a small amount of maintenance involved (more for wind than solar), but it’s pretty insignificant compared with the energy produced.

Try to imagine if we could buy coal, gasoline or natural gas at the same price as 30 years ago.

This is one of the factors that makes me most optimistic about the energy transition. 

[pecunia]

Not EV related, but one of the underappreciated aspects of solar and wind is that they are the most inflation proof form of energy ever invented.

Once a solar panel or wind turbine is installed, it produces energy at roughly the same cost for 25-30 years. There’s a small amount of maintenance involved (more for wind than solar), but it’s pretty insignificant compared with the energy produced.

Try to imagine if we could buy coal, gasoline or natural gas at the same price as 30 years ago.

This is one of the factors that makes me most optimistic about the energy transition.

Nukes are a bit like that as there's a lot of capital up front.  The fuel is cheap.  So the borrowed money gets a boost over time by inflation.  the dollar spent when the plant was built may be much less in future years as the time value of money takes its toll.

[LennStar]

Not EV related, but one of the underappreciated aspects of solar and wind is that they are the most inflation proof form of energy ever invented.

Once a solar panel or wind turbine is installed, it produces energy at roughly the same cost for 25-30 years. There’s a small amount of maintenance involved (more for wind than solar), but it’s pretty insignificant compared with the energy produced.

Try to imagine if we could buy coal, gasoline or natural gas at the same price as 30 years ago.

This is one of the factors that makes me most optimistic about the energy transition.

Nukes are a bit like that as there's a lot of capital up front.  The fuel is cheap.  So the borrowed money gets a boost over time by inflation.  the dollar spent when the plant was built may be much less in future years as the time value of money takes its toll.

Not true for the storage though. Theoretically you would need to look at it every decade or so and also pay guards at the entrance.
Which makes it financially unpayable even if the building, running and fueling would be given for free by God. Such is the power of the compounded interest.

[nereo]

Not EV related, but one of the underappreciated aspects of solar and wind is that they are the most inflation proof form of energy ever invented.

Once a solar panel or wind turbine is installed, it produces energy at roughly the same cost for 25-30 years. There’s a small amount of maintenance involved (more for wind than solar), but it’s pretty insignificant compared with the energy produced.

Try to imagine if we could buy coal, gasoline or natural gas at the same price as 30 years ago.

This is one of the factors that makes me most optimistic about the energy transition.

Nukes are a bit like that as there's a lot of capital up front.  The fuel is cheap.  So the borrowed money gets a boost over time by inflation.  the dollar spent when the plant was built may be much less in future years as the time value of money takes its toll.

Not true for the storage though. Theoretically you would need to look at it every decade or so and also pay guards at the entrance.
Which makes it financially unpayable even if the building, running and fueling would be given for free by God. Such is the power of the compounded interest.

It’s not theoretical. In the US we still have no national repository (see: Yucca Mountain). In turn, every reactor uses on site storage.  Most have gone to dry casks after several years in pools.  By law a plant must provide for storage for at least 60 years after the plant has been decommissioned, and they pay into a trust during operation to cover said costs, which includes security, monitoring and maintenence   During operation them plants are a series of concentric security zones, which makes up a large share of the overall operating costs.

The fuel may be cheap (especially when considering the total output per kg), but operational costs are considerable even after construction due to the security, complexity and fuel storage.

[LennStar]

I just read that BYD plans to start car production in uh... Hungary in 2025. (And also Turkey). They aim at the B-Market (smaller cars).
Buuut... the sales are looking bad for the first quarter.

On the other hand BYD hopes to get itself more known because they are the primary sponsor of the football Europe Masters in Germany, replacing VW.
I don't care for cars or fottball, but that sounds important, like the "writing on the wall" feeling.

Anyway, the point is that with producing in a EU country, BYD would be a EU producer and protective duties don't work.
They could do the same in the "we are the Free Trade country and enact a 100% duty" America too.
Would Americans buy a Chinese NEV, *build in America*?

[JLee]

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

And I remember paying $1/gallon shortly after I got my driver's license (circa 2002). From that starting point you'd expect gas to still be under $2/gallon today after inflation.

From there yes - but (technology aside) what other general necessity has dropped that significantly in price over time?  Not health care, food, housing, education, cars...

[LennStar]

Before you complain about gas prices, please remember that this is stuff that had to be taken out of the deep ground, refined in big complexes and carried all the way to you.

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

[AlanStache]

...
Would Americans buy a Chinese NEV, *build in America*?

I would say Toyota has successfully entered the american market and back in the day Japan had a similar image as China does today.  Will take some years but expect it can be done. 

[nereo]

Before you complain about gas prices, please remember that this is stuff that had to be taken out of the deep ground, refined in big complexes and carried all the way to you.

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

And I remember paying $1/gallon shortly after I got my driver's license (circa 2002). From that starting point you'd expect gas to still be under $2/gallon today after inflation.

From there yes - but (technology aside) what other general necessity has dropped that significantly in price over time? Not health care, food, housing, education, cars...

Computers are a whole heck of a lot cheaper now than they were circa 2002, with a ton more functionality. You can buy a chrome book today for about $100 - nothing even close existed in 2002.  A mid-range Apple MacBook (G3) started at $1499; nearest equivalent (in lineup) is about $400 cheaper now. Tech in general is way cheaper - digital cameras also come to mind, though that may not be considered "necessity".
People gripe about phone prices but you can get many phones for free* with a 2 year contract, and that contract has unlimited text and nation-wide calling, both of which cost a fortune in 2002.

Cars are an interesting one... while the sticker price has certainly increased and the days of being able to do most any repair with little more than a set of wrenches are over, the fuel efficiency of cars has skyrocketed in the last 3 decades while the total longevity (as total miles driven before its junked) has also increased by something like 40%.
Consider the top selling sedan in 2002, the Toyota Camry SE (which conveniently is a top selling car in 2024). 
IN 2002 the MSRP was $20,600; mpg 24/33; 159 hp (4 cylinder)
in 2024 the same trim line is $27.960; mpg 28/39; 202 hp (4 cylinder)

Adjusted for inflation (CPI), that 2002 Camry costs $35,900 in todays dollars. The fuel economy has jumped 18%, hp by almost 40%.  The 2024 version also has a crap ton more features than its 2002 ancestor. 

In other words, a similar car costs much less in real dollars today and has better performance, lower fuel costs and likely longer longevity. It's not just the Camry - you can compare similar car lines all over the place and see huge jumps, with the exception of 'luxury' and pickups, which have gotten ludicrously expensive.

[nereo]

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

If we are comparing retail prices it's way more than that.  Currently gasoline is $3.29 down the street from me.  They've got a big ad for Monster Energy Drinks (16 oz) for $3 (apparently a decent price, comparatively). That's $25.37/gal for the energy drink (with tax) vs $3.29 for the same volume of gasoline.

Bottled tap water is better, but still way more expensive.  $0.99 for a 16oz bottle, or $7.97/gal.  "spring" water costs roughly double.

For conversion purposes that's $6.56/liter for the energy drink and $2.06/liter for bottle tap water.

[JLee]

Before you complain about gas prices, please remember that this is stuff that had to be taken out of the deep ground, refined in big complexes and carried all the way to you.

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

And I remember paying $1/gallon shortly after I got my driver's license (circa 2002). From that starting point you'd expect gas to still be under $2/gallon today after inflation.

From there yes - but (technology aside) what other general necessity has dropped that significantly in price over time? Not health care, food, housing, education, cars...

Computers are a whole heck of a lot cheaper now than they were circa 2002, with a ton more functionality. You can buy a chrome book today for about $100 - nothing even close existed in 2002.  A mid-range Apple MacBook (G3) started at $1499; nearest equivalent (in lineup) is about $400 cheaper now. Tech in general is way cheaper - digital cameras also come to mind, though that may not be considered "necessity".
People gripe about phone prices but you can get many phones for free* with a 2 year contract, and that contract has unlimited text and nation-wide calling, both of which cost a fortune in 2002.

Cars are an interesting one... while the sticker price has certainly increased and the days of being able to do most any repair with little more than a set of wrenches are over, the fuel efficiency of cars has skyrocketed in the last 3 decades while the total longevity (as total miles driven before its junked) has also increased by something like 40%.
Consider the top selling sedan in 2002, the Toyota Camry SE (which conveniently is a top selling car in 2024). 
IN 2002 the MSRP was $20,600; mpg 24/33; 159 hp (4 cylinder)
in 2024 the same trim line is $27.960; mpg 28/39; 202 hp (4 cylinder)

Adjusted for inflation (CPI), that 2002 Camry costs $35,900 in todays dollars. The fuel economy has jumped 18%, hp by almost 40%.  The 2024 version also has a crap ton more features than its 2002 ancestor. 

In other words, a similar car costs much less in real dollars today and has better performance, lower fuel costs and likely longer longevity. It's not just the Camry - you can compare similar car lines all over the place and see huge jumps, with the exception of 'luxury' and pickups, which have gotten ludicrously expensive.

:p

 My point is that, for some reason, gas prices have become this sticking point in society where everybody complains / blames administrations / politics / etc if it goes up.  Meanwhile, grocery prices have climbed and sizes have dropped (I noticed 1.4 qt ice cream the other day...we've gone from 2 to 1.75 to 1.5 to 1.4 quarts), real estate is absolutely bonkers, health care, education, etc etc etc have all gone completely insane and gasoline is literally cheaper than it was 15 years ago, even if you ignore inflation.  That makes no sense at all to me, and when gas goes north of $4 (1/3 less than inflation adjusted #'s from 2008) people start to lose their minds again. 

[Paper Chaser]

My point is that, for some reason, gas prices have become this sticking point in society where everybody complains / blames administrations / politics / etc if it goes up.  Meanwhile, grocery prices have climbed and sizes have dropped (I noticed 1.4 qt ice cream the other day...we've gone from 2 to 1.75 to 1.5 to 1.4 quarts), real estate is absolutely bonkers, health care, education, etc etc etc have all gone completely insane and gasoline is literally cheaper than it was 15 years ago, even if you ignore inflation.  That makes no sense at all to me, and when gas goes north of $4 (1/3 less than inflation adjusted #'s from 2008) people start to lose their minds again.

Price anchoring aside, I think everybody is just producing a whole lot more oil now than they have historically:



And vehicles of all types have seen some meaningful fuel economy gains in recent years as well:



So domestic demand is lower now than it was before the Great Recession:

[pecunia]

Before you complain about gas prices, please remember that this is stuff that had to be taken out of the deep ground, refined in big complexes and carried all the way to you.

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

I'm a bit astonished that gas prices have remained so stable over time.  I remember paying north of $4/gallon in 2008 (in NH, not a HCOL area) -- inflation alone should put that at $5.80+/gallon now.  Housing and food have skyrocketed, but somehow gas is largely unaffected.

And I remember paying $1/gallon shortly after I got my driver's license (circa 2002). From that starting point you'd expect gas to still be under $2/gallon today after inflation.

From there yes - but (technology aside) what other general necessity has dropped that significantly in price over time? Not health care, food, housing, education, cars...

Computers are a whole heck of a lot cheaper now than they were circa 2002, with a ton more functionality. You can buy a chrome book today for about $100 - nothing even close existed in 2002.  A mid-range Apple MacBook (G3) started at $1499; nearest equivalent (in lineup) is about $400 cheaper now. Tech in general is way cheaper - digital cameras also come to mind, though that may not be considered "necessity".
People gripe about phone prices but you can get many phones for free* with a 2 year contract, and that contract has unlimited text and nation-wide calling, both of which cost a fortune in 2002.

Cars are an interesting one... while the sticker price has certainly increased and the days of being able to do most any repair with little more than a set of wrenches are over, the fuel efficiency of cars has skyrocketed in the last 3 decades while the total longevity (as total miles driven before its junked) has also increased by something like 40%.
Consider the top selling sedan in 2002, the Toyota Camry SE (which conveniently is a top selling car in 2024). 
IN 2002 the MSRP was $20,600; mpg 24/33; 159 hp (4 cylinder)
in 2024 the same trim line is $27.960; mpg 28/39; 202 hp (4 cylinder)

Adjusted for inflation (CPI), that 2002 Camry costs $35,900 in todays dollars. The fuel economy has jumped 18%, hp by almost 40%.  The 2024 version also has a crap ton more features than its 2002 ancestor. 

In other words, a similar car costs much less in real dollars today and has better performance, lower fuel costs and likely longer longevity. It's not just the Camry - you can compare similar car lines all over the place and see huge jumps, with the exception of 'luxury' and pickups, which have gotten ludicrously expensive.

:p

 My point is that, for some reason, gas prices have become this sticking point in society where everybody complains / blames administrations / politics / etc if it goes up.  Meanwhile, grocery prices have climbed and sizes have dropped (I noticed 1.4 qt ice cream the other day...we've gone from 2 to 1.75 to 1.5 to 1.4 quarts), real estate is absolutely bonkers, health care, education, etc etc etc have all gone completely insane and gasoline is literally cheaper than it was 15 years ago, even if you ignore inflation.  That makes no sense at all to me, and when gas goes north of $4 (1/3 less than inflation adjusted #'s from 2008) people start to lose their minds again.

Maybe the fracking thing and the tar sands have something to do with the gas price.  I remember the days of high inflation in the late seventies.  North America was more dependent on the Middle Eastern countries.  OPEC was happy to sell up oil at their cartel prices.  Refineries are not so dependent on those guys now.

It's been said herein that oil as a commodity is very sensitive to demand.  I remember smiling as I bought gas for a buck a gallon during the pandemic.  So,......I'm hoping that more electric cars are sold to keep my gas prices low until my car wears out.

It seems like items that are technological in nature have had their effective prices lowered.  Certainly, the price of flat screen TVs has tumbled, computers, solar electricity, windmills and some other examples.  Shouldn't we expect the same if we began building nuclear plants again? 

[Paper Chaser]

It seems like items that are technological in nature have had their effective prices lowered.  Certainly, the price of flat screen TVs has tumbled, computers, solar electricity, windmills and some other examples.  Shouldn't we expect the same if we began building nuclear plants again?

The things that have gotten cheaper are primarily manufactured goods that are now made over seas with cheap labor:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-changes-consumer-goods-services-united-states

[AccidentialMustache]

From there yes - but (technology aside) what other general necessity has dropped that significantly in price over time?  Not health care, food, housing, education, cars...

You can debate the "necessity", but... lego bricks are about 10-12 cents per brick on average... both in the '80s and still today. The nice thing about lego is, in terms of the bricks, it is basically the same thing in the 70s/80s as today. It isn't like the plastic brick itself has substantially evolved over time, unlike computers or cars.

Sure the sets are more expensive, but that's because they are far (far!) higher piece counts than they were in the past.

[LennStar]

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

If we are comparing retail prices it's way more than that.  Currently gasoline is $3.29 down the street from me.  They've got a big ad for Monster Energy Drinks (16 oz) for $3 (apparently a decent price, comparatively). That's $25.37/gal for the energy drink (with tax) vs $3.29 for the same volume of gasoline.

Bottled tap water is better, but still way more expensive.  $0.99 for a 16oz bottle, or $7.97/gal.  "spring" water costs roughly double.

For conversion purposes that's $6.56/liter for the energy drink and $2.06/liter for bottle tap water.

Wow! That means Monster is double as much in the US than in Germany! Why the hell did my Monster stocks go down??

But Tech is really incredible. The Ryzen 5 that will be released at the end of this year has roughly double the IPC of the first generation from 2019 while having 30% higher Ghz with half the TDP.
Or: I just payed 170€ to replace my old 270€ (sale) tablet from 2017, the newer one having a 3/4 faster CPU and double the "disk" space.

Also air and cruise ship travel has become a lot cheaper like it was 50 years ago. But I would not rate that as necessity. If you do take a car as necessity, there is a hook though: The low end segment simply no longer exists. There are no cars under 10K€. The lowest is 14K I think.

[pecunia]

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

If we are comparing retail prices it's way more than that.  Currently gasoline is $3.29 down the street from me.  They've got a big ad for Monster Energy Drinks (16 oz) for $3 (apparently a decent price, comparatively). That's $25.37/gal for the energy drink (with tax) vs $3.29 for the same volume of gasoline.

Bottled tap water is better, but still way more expensive.  $0.99 for a 16oz bottle, or $7.97/gal.  "spring" water costs roughly double.

For conversion purposes that's $6.56/liter for the energy drink and $2.06/liter for bottle tap water.

Wow! That means Monster is double as much in the US than in Germany! Why the hell did my Monster stocks go down??

But Tech is really incredible. The Ryzen 5 that will be released at the end of this year has roughly double the IPC of the first generation from 2019 while having 30% higher Ghz with half the TDP.
Or: I just payed 170€ to replace my old 270€ (sale) tablet from 2017, the newer one having a 3/4 faster CPU and double the "disk" space.

Also air and cruise ship travel has become a lot cheaper like it was 50 years ago. But I would not rate that as necessity. If you do take a car as necessity, there is a hook though: The low end segment simply no longer exists. There are no cars under 10K€. The lowest is 14K I think.

Just a few months ago, they were talking about this Seagull Electric car which in US price was about $10,000.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-18/cheap-chinese-electric-cars-are-squeezing-us-automakers

So a bit further back in this rambling mess, the idea as to whether Chinese electric cars would ever sell in the US was asked.  A car that costs $10,000 and needs no gas would not be a discouragement to people.  I do believe most people in the United States have no concerns where items were made.  To be truly critical, many would not be able to point to China on a world map.

Would Germans be interested in an electric car for 9200 Euros?

I see a lot of electric bikes.  Most of them are made in China, I believe.

[Just Joe]

...
Would Americans buy a Chinese NEV, *build in America*?

I would say Toyota has successfully entered the american market and back in the day Japan had a similar image as China does today.  Will take some years but expect it can be done.

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

I've owned many cheap cars - cars that were cheap when they were new, even cheaper when they were old. IMHO Honda (and others) generally get this right. A Honda might be cheap but it is durable. I'm hoping my Kona EV will be like that. Plenty of hard plastic inside.

I like cheap cars too for MMM reasons. I've owned an aircooled Beetle for about 30 years at this point. True to its age and original cost it needs more repairs and maintenance than a modern car but - the parts are generally affordable and easy to replace. Beetles could be coaxed into limping along in various states of disarray if I person didn't mind a lack of heat, roll starting the car, and generally making due without. But, it was likable so instead of being paired with the Yugo and Pontiac Aztek, people make excuses for them. ;)

That's where the Yugo was under-appreciated. It was a licensed copy of a Fiat 127 or 128 (I think it was the 127). They were very basic city cars. Who cared if the window regulators lasted 5 years at a time b/c the replacement regulator was ~$25. Repair it and life goes on. Just like Beetle.

Instead American's expectations were higher than the Yugo could deliver. Plus car review tiny details syndrome. It's always easy to punch downward. Well yeah the Yugo wasn't as nice as a Chevy but dang, it was cheap which is great when a person doesn't have a lot of money. But to some folks looking poor - even if a person is frugal instead - is a insurmountable faux paus.

Last point: some cheap cars attract cheap owners. I don't mean poor owners. It attracts them too. I mean cheap owners who don't take care of their shiny toy. When it breaks they choose half-ass solutions that fail repeatedly rather than a proper repair that lasts. Back in the mid-90s when Kia Sephias came on the market here they were everywhere here for a short few years before disappearing entirely. Bad car? Yes. Cheap car? Yes. Abused and neglected car? Often. I'd see them rolling around town just beaten to pieces when they were just a few years old.

They had some quality problems but they also had owner problems. How many of those owners blamed their car problems on Kia rather than their own neglect?

[nereo]

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph. Again, if the car can hold speed at 75mpg, it's probably fine. But if you're forced to slow down to well below the speed limit during climbs it starts to feel unsafe.  Probably is unsafe with the drivers around here.

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

[reeshau]

Also air and cruise ship travel has become a lot cheaper like it was 50 years ago. But I would not rate that as necessity. If you do take a car as necessity, there is a hook though: The low end segment simply no longer exists. There are no cars under 10K€. The lowest is 14K I think.

The competition for a low-end new car is not other new cars; it's used cars with more features, but some wear on them.  That's what makes it a tough segment.

[Taran Wanderer]

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

Shoot, I had a series of 1980’s Ford Escorts that couldn’t pull a hill faster than 45 mph because I  had to be in 3rd gear with all my college stuff in them. It made the big freeway climbs an adventure trying to work around the trucks climbing at 25 mph while staying out of the way of the real cars climbing at 70 mph. Of course, at the top of one of those summits we saw an air-cooled VW van that had caught on fire because it overheated on the climb, so the Ford Escort was better than that!  People today forget how good we have it… no matter what we’re driving!

[LennStar]

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph.

The top speed is capped electronically. After all, if you aren't allowed to drive faster there is no reason your car can do it, right? ;)

As for the "problems": I can't say for the electric motor, but I can say for my 49kW (slighly less than the seagull) car that you cannot do that - if it's a really steep hill you might even have to get down into the 4th and drive 75-80km/h top.
But that is what happenes to every truck (as in lorry), camping car etc. so I don't understand your unsafe point.

Regarding the price, it will be higher in Europe, in fact the smallest (the 10K) BYD car will not eppear here, it will be a bigger version. I didn't really understand it, and no real details were given. But it is partly because of safety regulations, partly because of "different expectation".

What safety that might be I have no idea. Maybe no expensive pressure detection tires? From my (low) knowledge the Chinese standards are not that much different (no wonder, since they produce a lot of the cars).
I could certainly do without some of those expensive safety things, like the pressure detection or backwards driving camera.

[alsoknownasDean]

An energy drink costs double that per litre (or gallon) and is 99% water.

If we are comparing retail prices it's way more than that.  Currently gasoline is $3.29 down the street from me.  They've got a big ad for Monster Energy Drinks (16 oz) for $3 (apparently a decent price, comparatively). That's $25.37/gal for the energy drink (with tax) vs $3.29 for the same volume of gasoline.

Bottled tap water is better, but still way more expensive.  $0.99 for a 16oz bottle, or $7.97/gal.  "spring" water costs roughly double.

For conversion purposes that's $6.56/liter for the energy drink and $2.06/liter for bottle tap water.

Wow! That means Monster is double as much in the US than in Germany! Why the hell did my Monster stocks go down??

But Tech is really incredible. The Ryzen 5 that will be released at the end of this year has roughly double the IPC of the first generation from 2019 while having 30% higher Ghz with half the TDP.
Or: I just payed 170€ to replace my old 270€ (sale) tablet from 2017, the newer one having a 3/4 faster CPU and double the "disk" space.

Also air and cruise ship travel has become a lot cheaper like it was 50 years ago. But I would not rate that as necessity. If you do take a car as necessity, there is a hook though: The low end segment simply no longer exists. There are no cars under 10K€. The lowest is 14K I think.

Just a few months ago, they were talking about this Seagull Electric car which in US price was about $10,000.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-18/cheap-chinese-electric-cars-are-squeezing-us-automakers

So a bit further back in this rambling mess, the idea as to whether Chinese electric cars would ever sell in the US was asked.  A car that costs $10,000 and needs no gas would not be a discouragement to people.  I do believe most people in the United States have no concerns where items were made.  To be truly critical, many would not be able to point to China on a world map.

Would Germans be interested in an electric car for 9200 Euros?

I see a lot of electric bikes.  Most of them are made in China, I believe.

I don't think the China price is reflective of likely export pricing, especially as export versions may differ.

The next size up Dolphin was around US$17K last year (now closer to $14k). When it was launched here last year, the base price was $38,890 (about $26K USD). It seems BYD Europe prices their vehicles higher still.

Would a Seagull size EV sell at €20K?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[nereo]

[
What safety that might be I have no idea. Maybe no expensive pressure detection tires? From my (low) knowledge the Chinese standards are not that much different (no wonder, since they produce a lot of the cars).
I could certainly do without some of those expensive safety things, like the pressure detection or backwards driving camera.

These are required on all cars sold in the US, whether you want them or not.  I’m not quite clear on what you are trying to say with the rest of your post.

[LennStar]

[
What safety that might be I have no idea. Maybe no expensive pressure detection tires? From my (low) knowledge the Chinese standards are not that much different (no wonder, since they produce a lot of the cars).
I could certainly do without some of those expensive safety things, like the pressure detection or backwards driving camera.

These are required on all cars sold in the US, whether you want them or not.  I’m not quite clear on what you are trying to say with the rest of your post.

Yes, they are required here in the EU too. I was guessing that this is not the case for China, and such the "safety" that needs to be added for the EU market.

[GilesMM]

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph. Again, if the car can hold speed at 75mpg, it's probably fine. But if you're forced to slow down to well below the speed limit during climbs it starts to feel unsafe.  Probably is unsafe with the drivers around here.

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

I wonder if a car being marketed in China with the name "City Car" is primarily intended to be blasting over North American mountain passes on high speed interstates.

[Just Joe]

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph. Again, if the car can hold speed at 75mpg, it's probably fine. But if you're forced to slow down to well below the speed limit during climbs it starts to feel unsafe.  Probably is unsafe with the drivers around here.

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

Alot of people I know who motorcycle or drive antique cars avoid the interstate when possible due to the high speeds. Also - antique braking systems... Oof!

[Just Joe]

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph. Again, if the car can hold speed at 75mpg, it's probably fine. But if you're forced to slow down to well below the speed limit during climbs it starts to feel unsafe.  Probably is unsafe with the drivers around here.

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

I wonder if a car being marketed in China with the name "City Car" is primarily intended to be blasting over North American mountain passes on high speed interstates.

Yeah, I was just thinking that. Lots of people here in the USA think a vehicle needs to be "all purpose" which brings us back to the conversation about two car families owning one larger vehicle, and one smaller (EV) car. Helps save money, environment, etc.

[NorCal]

If the car was good, then yeah people will buy it. If it is bad it will likely be excessively maligned just like the Yugo and a few others.

As always - you get what you pay for. Cheap cars are cheap for a reason. Hopefully they are cheap in the right places (hard plastic interior) and not in the expensive EV bits like the battery, inverter and motor.

Someone mentioned the BYD Seagull.  Looking at it, the 'top speed' is listed at 81mph, which is all fine and good if you can achieve something close to that under 'normal driving conditions'. 

..but, I worry what the speed might be with 2 (or more - can seat 4 apparently) adults in the car driving up hill into the wind. All the interstates around me are at least 65mph, while the more rural sections are 75 mph. Again, if the car can hold speed at 75mpg, it's probably fine. But if you're forced to slow down to well below the speed limit during climbs it starts to feel unsafe.  Probably is unsafe with the drivers around here.

Had a Suzuki SX4 with 2x the horsepower and it was just barely able to keep speed going 75mph on just the mildest of hills.

I wonder if a car being marketed in China with the name "City Car" is primarily intended to be blasting over North American mountain passes on high speed interstates.

In practice, there is a real market for commuter cars that work well in cities but don’t really get used in extreme conditions.

Neither the Bolt or Leaf are great road-trip cars. But it’s easy to forget that the Bolt was selling around 80k per year before it was discontinued, and there were more Leaf’s on the road than any other EV until relatively recently (it sold in modest volumes, but over many years).

The industry just didn't focus on them because they weren’t as profitable.

I also believe most current EV’s are largely purchased in two-car households where a gas car is still used for roadtrips. Even when people are paying for very road-trip capable EV’s.  A compelling commuter car could easily sell into 2 car households.

On a side note, I’m looking forward to seeing the Ultium based Bolt supposedly being built for 2026. It should be affordable while removing the limitations that made it a not-great road trip vehicle. While unlikely, I’d love to see them launch a ~150 mile range version.  That could likely come in cheaper than a gas car counterpart.

[AlanStache]

Also remember that the old weak cars were air breathing and the mountain pass could still have been at altitude where an EV will not get the same performance hit with thinner air.  Current Pikes Peak record is held by an EV. 

[GilesMM]

In practice, there is a real market for commuter cars that work well in cities but don’t really get used in extreme conditions.

Neither the Bolt or Leaf are great road-trip cars. But it’s easy to forget that the Bolt was selling around 80k per year before it was discontinued, and there were more Leaf’s on the road than any other EV until relatively recently (it sold in modest volumes, but over many years).
...

A European friend of mine relocated to Houston and bought a BMW i3, thinking he would live a European lifestyle and scoot around the city in his teensy electric car.  A couple scary trips on Houston interstates cured him of that.  He said the car was terrifying and was difficult to control above 50mph, nearly wrecking a couple times.  He kept it to city streets after that and eventually sold it.


https://www.speakev.com/threads/bmw-i3-unsteady-at-speeds-over-50mph.170456/

[dandarc]

In practice, there is a real market for commuter cars that work well in cities but don’t really get used in extreme conditions.

Neither the Bolt or Leaf are great road-trip cars. But it’s easy to forget that the Bolt was selling around 80k per year before it was discontinued, and there were more Leaf’s on the road than any other EV until relatively recently (it sold in modest volumes, but over many years).
...

A European friend of mine relocated to Houston and bought a BMW i3, thinking he would live a European lifestyle and scoot around the city in his teensy electric car.  A couple scary trips on Houston interstates cured him of that.  He said the car was terrifying and was difficult to control above 50mph, nearly wrecking a couple times.  He kept it to city streets after that and eventually sold it.


https://www.speakev.com/threads/bmw-i3-unsteady-at-speeds-over-50mph.170456/

Sounds like an alignment / balance issue. But being in a much smaller car than most Houston area freeway drivers is not as fixable a thing other than just getting used to the situation and driving defensively.

[Tyson]

In practice, there is a real market for commuter cars that work well in cities but don’t really get used in extreme conditions.

Neither the Bolt or Leaf are great road-trip cars. But it’s easy to forget that the Bolt was selling around 80k per year before it was discontinued, and there were more Leaf’s on the road than any other EV until relatively recently (it sold in modest volumes, but over many years).
...

A European friend of mine relocated to Houston and bought a BMW i3, thinking he would live a European lifestyle and scoot around the city in his teensy electric car.  A couple scary trips on Houston interstates cured him of that.  He said the car was terrifying and was difficult to control above 50mph, nearly wrecking a couple times.  He kept it to city streets after that and eventually sold it.


https://www.speakev.com/threads/bmw-i3-unsteady-at-speeds-over-50mph.170456/

Sounds like an alignment / balance issue. But being in a much smaller car than most Houston area freeway drivers is not as fixable a thing other than just getting used to the situation and driving defensively.

I lived in Houston back when I owned a tiny gas car, the Geo Metro.  Driving a tiny car on the highway in Houston is terrifying.  Regardless of engine type.

I live in CO now and driving an EV in the mountains is much better than my old Acura MDX.  And the MDX had 250 horsepower.  Electric motors eat large inclines for breakfast.

[JLee]

In practice, there is a real market for commuter cars that work well in cities but don’t really get used in extreme conditions.

Neither the Bolt or Leaf are great road-trip cars. But it’s easy to forget that the Bolt was selling around 80k per year before it was discontinued, and there were more Leaf’s on the road than any other EV until relatively recently (it sold in modest volumes, but over many years).
...

A European friend of mine relocated to Houston and bought a BMW i3, thinking he would live a European lifestyle and scoot around the city in his teensy electric car.  A couple scary trips on Houston interstates cured him of that.  He said the car was terrifying and was difficult to control above 50mph, nearly wrecking a couple times.  He kept it to city streets after that and eventually sold it.


https://www.speakev.com/threads/bmw-i3-unsteady-at-speeds-over-50mph.170456/

Sounds like an alignment / balance issue. But being in a much smaller car than most Houston area freeway drivers is not as fixable a thing other than just getting used to the situation and driving defensively.

I lived in Houston back when I owned a tiny gas car, the Geo Metro.  Driving a tiny car on the highway in Houston is terrifying.  Regardless of engine type.

I live in CO now and driving an EV in the mountains is much better than my old Acura MDX.  And the MDX had 250 horsepower.  Electric motors eat large inclines for breakfast.

Elevation is rough on naturally aspirated ICE - forced induction or EV will have a dramatic advantage up in the mountains.

[LennStar]

A European friend of mine relocated to Houston and bought a BMW i3, thinking he would live a European lifestyle and scoot around the city in his teensy electric car.  A couple scary trips on Houston interstates cured him of that.  He said the car was terrifying and was difficult to control above 50mph, nearly wrecking a couple times.  He kept it to city streets after that and eventually sold it.


https://www.speakev.com/threads/bmw-i3-unsteady-at-speeds-over-50mph.170456/

I have a really side wind dangerous car. Should definitely be worse than the i3. In general if there is any wind above a blow kiss it gets unsteady above 120km (80 miles).
But even that needs a storm (think horizontal rain and flying twigs) to get unsteady at 90km (55mph). And with more wind you don't want to be on a street anyway, regardless of the car you are in.