The Real Costs of Electric Car Ownership - CNET

[Percolater]

So...how do we feel about this?

Activists storm Tesla gigafactory in protest over expansion plans

Staff told to work from home after hundreds of Left-wing protesters break through police lines

www.telegraph.co.uk

VW and BMW do not want a USA company to obtrude their monopoly…
I think you’ll find these “radicals” are sponsored. Not hard to imagine who might be upset at Tesla for having a footprint in their backyard.

 

[jamil]

Speaking of tesla, can we fully classify this as a truck? It can do some “trucky” stuff. But, part of being a truck is towing…



TLDW: couldn’t tow an 8K lbs load 100 miles. Cost more than a diesel truck to tow it 85 miles. Other than towing. It should get the job done.

 

[jamil]

VW and BMW do not want a USA company to obtrude their monopoly…
I think you’ll find these “radicals” are sponsored. Not hard to imagine who might be upset at Tesla for having a footprint in their backyard.

Plausible. I don’t think it takes much to get NPC’s to attack anything.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Ingomike]

Ford cuts orders for electric vehicle batteries amid losses: Report

Ford lost $132,000 on each EV it sold in the first quarter of 2024, and in 2023, the company lost $46,176 on each EV it sold.

justthenews.com

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Any new car, outside of exotics, needs volume to be profitable. Probably some parallel with new medications, where the R&D costs are front loading negative value for years before the first retail sale ever takes place. For whatever reason, Ford seems to be trying to take on the higher end of the market instead of snagging volume and building brand awareness and loyalty.

Compare to the Maverick hybrid. It's low cost without being cheap, it does what many consumers actually want, and Ford can't build enough of them to satisfy demand. It's also $40k cheaper than the Lightning...

My gut says a Focus ST sort of vehicle that's EV would move in volume and for many of the reasons the Maverick is. Lower cost that newer buyers could afford. Newer buyers are more likely to be open to an EV option than older, more entrenched buyers. Increased urbanization of the country means something that's city parking friendly appeals to those younger buyers.

 

[Ingomike]

Any new car, outside of exotics, needs volume to be profitable. Probably some parallel with new medications, where the R&D costs are front loading negative value for years before the first retail sale ever takes place. For whatever reason, Ford seems to be trying to take on the higher end of the market instead of snagging volume and building brand awareness and loyalty.

Compare to the Maverick hybrid. It's low cost without being cheap, it does what many consumers actually want, and Ford can't build enough of them to satisfy demand. It's also $40k cheaper than the Lightning...

My gut says a Focus ST sort of vehicle that's EV would move in volume and for many of the reasons the Maverick is. Lower cost that newer buyers could afford. Newer buyers are more likely to be open to an EV option than older, more entrenched buyers. Increased urbanization of the country means something that's city parking friendly appeals to those younger buyers.

They too are being subsidized by the ICE vehicles, just like the econo-boxes were…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

They too are being subsidized by the ICE vehicles, just like the econo-boxes were…

Mavericks *are* ICE vehicles, either pure ICE (base) or hybrid ($2500-ish upcharge). Ford seems to think they make money on the Maverick, though not nearly as much as a more loaded vehicle, of course. It's built on a C2 platform, same as the Escape and Bronco Sport, same as a bunch of Euro/Asia market models, so costs are spread out over a larger volume even if they don't make/sell a lot of Mavericks.

Prices aren't going to go down as long as customers pay them, regardless of if the profits go to R&D or toward the $2.3 billion paid out to shareholders annually or to exec bonuses. Companies will continue to make and market $85-$100k trucks as long as they remain more profitable...but how long is that sustainable when the average new car buyer in that market is in their 50s?

 

[Ingomike]

How About a Cheap Used Car? It's Only Two Years Old, but There's a Catch...

pjmedia.com

 

[jamil]

How About a Cheap Used Car? It's Only Two Years Old, but There's a Catch...

pjmedia.com

---

First, there's the depreciation. iSeeCars reported in January that, on average, "electric cars have a five-year depreciation rate of 49.1%... compared to an overall industry average of a 38.8% five-year depreciation rate." Executive analyst Karl Brauer added, "This pattern will continue until electric vehicles don't require heavy incentives to sell and consumers gain confidence in their long-term ownership costs."

---

So, they're saying, if you're in the market for a slightly used EV, now is the perfect time to buy.

 

[Leadeye]

Any new car, outside of exotics, needs volume to be profitable. Probably some parallel with new medications, where the R&D costs are front loading negative value for years before the first retail sale ever takes place. For whatever reason, Ford seems to be trying to take on the higher end of the market instead of snagging volume and building brand awareness and loyalty.

Compare to the Maverick hybrid. It's low cost without being cheap, it does what many consumers actually want, and Ford can't build enough of them to satisfy demand. It's also $40k cheaper than the Lightning...

My gut says a Focus ST sort of vehicle that's EV would move in volume and for many of the reasons the Maverick is. Lower cost that newer buyers could afford. Newer buyers are more likely to be open to an EV option than older, more entrenched buyers. Increased urbanization of the country means something that's city parking friendly appeals to those younger buyers.

EVs actually have a future as a charge at home short range car for commuters. It all depends on what you use a car for.

Sadly though I see the chinese grabbing this segment of the market leaving American EVs priced out of it. American car companies may see this as the future and are going along with the government until they give up.

 

[jamil]

Mavericks *are* ICE vehicles, either pure ICE (base) or hybrid ($2500-ish upcharge). Ford seems to think they make money on the Maverick, though not nearly as much as a more loaded vehicle, of course. It's built on a C2 platform, same as the Escape and Bronco Sport, same as a bunch of Euro/Asia market models, so costs are spread out over a larger volume even if they don't make/sell a lot of Mavericks.

Prices aren't going to go down as long as customers pay them, regardless of if the profits go to R&D or toward the $2.3 billion paid out to shareholders annually or to exec bonuses. Companies will continue to make and market $85-$100k trucks as long as they remain more profitable...but how long is that sustainable when the average new car buyer in that market is in their 50s?

How sustainable is people being in their 50s? Or 60s, in my case. Works the same.

Human nature doesn't seem to change much, despite people's attempts to override compulsion. I don't know why people reach the age of 50 and then think plunking down that kind of cash on a truck will enhance their lives. I paid like ~$55K for the truck I have now and I think I was crazy for doing it back then. All those bells. All those whistles.

Despite my inner voice of reason, I've kicked around the idea of trading it. My desire wants to but my intuition tells me it's a sucker's bet paying ~20K more for the same ****ing truck but with a bigger info screen and a head-up display. Shut the **** up, desire! I'm NOT listening to you.



But all those cameras! How can I resist that at my age? Why am I so compelled to blow money on a new truck?

Then I start feeling like my current truck spies on me less than a new one would, so a new one is totally off the table.

Thank evolution for !

 

[Leadeye]

Think of the guns you could buy for the cost of a new truck.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How sustainable is people being in their 50s? Or 60s, in my case. Works the same.

Human nature doesn't seem to change much, despite people's attempts to override compulsion. I don't know why people reach the age of 50 and then think plunking down that kind of cash on a truck will enhance their lives.

Largely because that's when they finally have the money (and/or credit) to do it. Probably in their prime earning years, children are out of the house, bought a house well before housing costs went insane, are old enough to have savings but young enough to not be burning through it for medical reasons... They also starting driving in a time when cars were more throw-away but more affordable for the average blue collar worker so they're more likely to trade out based on some random mileage number, because the warranty expired and they are scared 'of all this modern stuff you can't work on yourself', and because they are still keeping up with the Joneses even though they'll vehemently deny it.

It's not that people in their 20s-30s don't want an expensive new truck, after all. It's just they lack the means.

 

[Ingomike]

EVerything's Full at the Ports: Chinese EVs Piling Up

hotair.com

 

[jamil]

Heck, if they can’t sell the Chinese EV’s over there, maybe there’s a market for packaging them with tannerite here. That sounds like fun.

 

[manifest destiny]

I'll be curious to find out what life (real life) expectancy EV's truly have. How many miles, how many hours, how many years, etc. There are many stories of ICE engines running for a half-million miles. Sometimes even a million miles. Occasionally the manufacturer will buy-back an ICE vehicle that reaches a million miles to see if they can learn from it. Everyone discusses the EV battery life span. What about the actual motor(s)? How long might an EV last, on average?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll be curious to find out what life (real life) expectancy EV's truly have. How many miles, how many hours, how many years, etc. There are many stories of ICE engines running for a half-million miles. Sometimes even a million miles. Occasionally the manufacturer will buy-back an ICE vehicle that reaches a million miles to see if they can learn from it. Everyone discusses the EV battery life span. What about the actual motor(s)? How long might an EV last, on average?

Probably going to be all over the map, just like ICE motors are. 434k miles is the highest mileage original motor Tesla I've heard of, but obviously many have failed before that. Apparently a coolant look is what takes most of them out. Early Teslas had some issue with bearings that the motor would ground through causing issues, but they went to ceramics and sorted that out. Lifespan is improving and, now with real car makers like Ford entering the fray and competition getting more serious, I think you'll see both further improvements and a more robust non-OEM rebuild market.

I would bet that, overall, the lifespans will be longer than gas and on par or longer than diesels when controlled for similar power outputs. Fewer moving parts, no idling hours, no 'cold starts', rotary vs piston driven meaning the parts are spinning in the same direction all the time vs reciprocating and the strain that constant acceleration, deceleration, and direction change puts on parts. No timing belts/chains to change, no valves hammering their seats, etc, etc.

Then consider the overall drivetrain and it's even simpler since the traditional transmission is gone. At least in our fleet, transmissions take out way more cars than engines do. No alternator, no starter, no emissions/exhaust, etc.

The battery remains the biggest concern, both in terms of longevity and in terms of cost.

 

[jamil]

Probably going to be all over the map, just like ICE motors are. 434k miles is the highest mileage original motor Tesla I've heard of, but obviously many have failed before that. Apparently a coolant look is what takes most of them out. Early Teslas had some issue with bearings that the motor would ground through causing issues, but they went to ceramics and sorted that out. Lifespan is improving and, now with real car makers like Ford entering the fray and competition getting more serious, I think you'll see both further improvements and a more robust non-OEM rebuild market.

I would bet that, overall, the lifespans will be longer than gas and on par or longer than diesels when controlled for similar power outputs. Fewer moving parts, no idling hours, no 'cold starts', rotary vs piston driven meaning the parts are spinning in the same direction all the time vs reciprocating and the strain that constant acceleration, deceleration, and direction change puts on parts. No timing belts/chains to change, no valves hammering their seats, etc, etc.

Then consider the overall drivetrain and it's even simpler since the traditional transmission is gone. At least in our fleet, transmissions take out way more cars than engines do. No alternator, no starter, no emissions/exhaust, etc.

The battery remains the biggest concern, both in terms of longevity and in terms of cost.

Motors aren't the question with EV's. Battery is the part with the questionable life expectancy. Tesla's have 8 year/100K - 150K battery warranties. After 8 years or 150K miles, you can have a $13K - $20K part failure on an ICE vehicle. But if you do, it's either very rare or you dun ****ed up. On an EV, it's kind of inevitable for a lot more owners.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Motors aren't the question with EV's.

Motors are the question with the post I quoted and responded to:

What about the actual motor(s)? How long might an EV last, on average?

Battery is the part with the questionable life expectancy.

Huh. Probably why I said:

The battery remains the biggest concern, both in terms of longevity and in terms of cost.

C'mon, papaw, read the thread before commenting on my comment.