The Average New EV Costs $14,000 Less Than It Did a Year Ago: KBB(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
The Average New EV Costs $14,000 Less Than It Did a Year Ago: KBB
https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-average-new-ev-costs-14000-less-than-it-did-a-year-ago
199 comments
So what battery production prices are falling 10% a year around the same for solar and wind electricity. As more electric car manufacturing ramps up with more investments prices will keep falling.
Most people finance a purchase like cars are paying it over 6-7 years. Today looking at gas prices the fuel cost saving can be anywhere between $100-300 a month depending on how much you drive where you charge. So even if an electric car that is 10k more expensive than ice is actually still cheaper today for a lot of people if you look at monthly expense. And each year it gets cheaper for more people to go electric as electric cars get cheaper. This is going to accelerate the price drops are too rapid for most people to understand cost analysis research from 2 years ago might no longer be valid today and today cost analysis wont be valid in another 1-2 years
Most people finance a purchase like cars are paying it over 6-7 years. Today looking at gas prices the fuel cost saving can be anywhere between $100-300 a month depending on how much you drive where you charge. So even if an electric car that is 10k more expensive than ice is actually still cheaper today for a lot of people if you look at monthly expense. And each year it gets cheaper for more people to go electric as electric cars get cheaper. This is going to accelerate the price drops are too rapid for most people to understand cost analysis research from 2 years ago might no longer be valid today and today cost analysis wont be valid in another 1-2 years
Sad truth, as you say, most people finance their cars, and with higher rates, those fuel savings mostly vanish, due to interest on the extra 15k loan over 4 or 8 years.
Ironically, the EVs are currently priced higher due to Fed+State tax incentives. I bet the EV prices would be much lower if there were no such tax incentives (this is evidenced by the fact that EV prices are usually updated the day after the govt. changes these values).
Do you have any sources because that’s some backward thinking that needs some strong evidence? It would mean all the car manufacturers would have to collude to raise their prices by the amount of the incentives.
It’s funny how you assume they need to collude instead of each acting in its own independent selfish interest.
Why does one need to present strong evidence that prices will rise by $7500 when the demand curve suddenly shifts right by $7500 due to government intervention? Surely this is just Econ 101.
Why does one need to present strong evidence that prices will rise by $7500 when the demand curve suddenly shifts right by $7500 due to government intervention? Surely this is just Econ 101.
1. There’s an assumption here that all manufacturers will simultaneously raise prices by $7,500 in response to a demand curve shift. If a single manufacturer steps out of line and lowers prices, they will carry more volume, and therefore more revenue.
2. Manufacturing costs do not increase when subsidies are introduced. EVs, as a result, have higher profit margins. Therefore, this will result in enticing more firms to enter a more lucrative market, resulting in more EV sales, which really, isn’t that the goal of subsidies in the first place?
2. Manufacturing costs do not increase when subsidies are introduced. EVs, as a result, have higher profit margins. Therefore, this will result in enticing more firms to enter a more lucrative market, resulting in more EV sales, which really, isn’t that the goal of subsidies in the first place?
I don't know if you realize it, but you are making the assumption every EV manufacturer has the capacity to produce vastly more EVs than they currently do. What makes you believe in that assumption?
If you believe that firms don’t respond to incentives, then sure. If you believe that people do not innovate to optimize their utility, then sure. If you think America can’t build things, then sure; it’s an invalid assumption.
I don't know if you understand this, but factories have a maximum capacity they can produce. You can't just snap your fingers and double the capacity of a factory overnight if you realize that it is too small.
Look at how long it took Tesla to build the Shanghai gigafactory: About two years--and literally everyone who knew anything about auto manufacturing said it would be literally impossible to make that timeline when Tesla announced it in the beginning. People made jokes about it. Oh look at that! Elon Musk is lying again! Hurhurhur.
I mean, why do you think the Model S had zero competition for over 7 years? The first 2 years I understand--everyone thought EVs were a dead market. But why did Mercedes, BMW, Audi, et. al. wait the other 5 years (while Tesla was absolutely destroying their market share in the US) to bring out a competitive product?
Was it because they're a bunch of dumb-dumbs?
Or was it maybe because it takes many years to design a complex product like an EV and build a factory to build the car?
Look at how long it took Tesla to build the Shanghai gigafactory: About two years--and literally everyone who knew anything about auto manufacturing said it would be literally impossible to make that timeline when Tesla announced it in the beginning. People made jokes about it. Oh look at that! Elon Musk is lying again! Hurhurhur.
I mean, why do you think the Model S had zero competition for over 7 years? The first 2 years I understand--everyone thought EVs were a dead market. But why did Mercedes, BMW, Audi, et. al. wait the other 5 years (while Tesla was absolutely destroying their market share in the US) to bring out a competitive product?
Was it because they're a bunch of dumb-dumbs?
Or was it maybe because it takes many years to design a complex product like an EV and build a factory to build the car?
> If a single manufacturer steps out of line and lowers prices, they will carry more volume, and therefore more revenue.
How will they do that? Every one of them is production-constrained right now.
> Manufacturing costs do not increase when subsidies are introduced. EVs, as a result, have higher profit margins.
Now you're getting it!
> Therefore, this will result in enticing more firms to enter a more lucrative market, resulting in more EV sales, which really, isn’t that the goal of subsidies in the first place?
Sure, but it takes 5-10 years to design a new EV and spin up a plant. Will the subsidies still exist by then? (Probably not, because we are in the exponential phase of the EV adoption curve, so the subsidy will quickly become unsustainable).
How will they do that? Every one of them is production-constrained right now.
> Manufacturing costs do not increase when subsidies are introduced. EVs, as a result, have higher profit margins.
Now you're getting it!
> Therefore, this will result in enticing more firms to enter a more lucrative market, resulting in more EV sales, which really, isn’t that the goal of subsidies in the first place?
Sure, but it takes 5-10 years to design a new EV and spin up a plant. Will the subsidies still exist by then? (Probably not, because we are in the exponential phase of the EV adoption curve, so the subsidy will quickly become unsustainable).
This seems like a good test to determine the amount of competition in an economic sector. With suficient competition, the price will race to the slimmest sustainable profit margin. I mean you could try to raise your price up by $7500, but if your competitors don't, who will be getting sales?
In any case, EV prices have been dropping over recent years, and I haven't seen a $7500 bump in prices, just in more people being willing to go for a nicer vehicle instead.
In any case, EV prices have been dropping over recent years, and I haven't seen a $7500 bump in prices, just in more people being willing to go for a nicer vehicle instead.
That only works if the total capacity to produce products for that market is greater than the total demand for products in that market.
If people want 100 units of something, and 5 competing manufacturers can only produce 90 units total (and can only expand to, say, 110 units in a "short" timeframe), offering subsidies doesn't reduce the price.
If the government creates a demand shock, it doesn't matter how much competition exists in the market. They don't need to collude for prices to go up.
Look at what happened to toilet paper during Covid. Were Walmart, Amazon, McMaster and Grainger all colluding on toilet paper prices? Or was there a demand shock?
> In any case, EV prices have been dropping over recent years, and I haven't seen a $7500 bump in prices, just in more people being willing to go for a nicer vehicle instead.
All car prices have been dropping because we're getting past the Covid supply shocks. And if you go back farther, EV price drops are mostly the result of introducing new less-luxurious models (the current base Model 3 still costs more than the first RWD Model 3, and it has been decontented--missing features like parking sensors).
If people want 100 units of something, and 5 competing manufacturers can only produce 90 units total (and can only expand to, say, 110 units in a "short" timeframe), offering subsidies doesn't reduce the price.
If the government creates a demand shock, it doesn't matter how much competition exists in the market. They don't need to collude for prices to go up.
Look at what happened to toilet paper during Covid. Were Walmart, Amazon, McMaster and Grainger all colluding on toilet paper prices? Or was there a demand shock?
> In any case, EV prices have been dropping over recent years, and I haven't seen a $7500 bump in prices, just in more people being willing to go for a nicer vehicle instead.
All car prices have been dropping because we're getting past the Covid supply shocks. And if you go back farther, EV price drops are mostly the result of introducing new less-luxurious models (the current base Model 3 still costs more than the first RWD Model 3, and it has been decontented--missing features like parking sensors).
They don't have to collude to react to a change in the market simultaneously.
It has precedent too, solar panel incentives, home building incentives etc. When government grants show up, vendors can take it into account if they want. If enough of them do, the market price has changed and so everyone can put their prices up. They are in a market that is not racing their prices to the bottom to drive demand so it works out.
It has precedent too, solar panel incentives, home building incentives etc. When government grants show up, vendors can take it into account if they want. If enough of them do, the market price has changed and so everyone can put their prices up. They are in a market that is not racing their prices to the bottom to drive demand so it works out.
Most manufacturers (besides Tesla) lose money on every EV they sell, such as ford losing 32k per EV (other OEMs don't break out reporting for EVs), they would not lower cost by the tax incentive if it went away.
I think Tesla may start losing money soon. Sales are down, new quality issues are found every day and the company is involved in 100+ lawsuits.
I don't know about Ford, but most other major companies are only "losing" money because they have started a new vehicle platform and need a year or two to get the development costs back. Compared to previous CE platforms they are actually doing much much better.
I don't know about Ford, but most other major companies are only "losing" money because they have started a new vehicle platform and need a year or two to get the development costs back. Compared to previous CE platforms they are actually doing much much better.
The evidence doesn't seem to back this up, since when states change incentives at different times we don't see the list price change.
Where are you getting a $10K premium? I don't see an ICE ATP listed as you maintain. The number that you appear to be referring to $44K, is for non luxury vehicles, which is not directly comparable to the EV category.
I would guess the premium is closer to $5K, the difference from the $48K ATP for all transactions. Those are 90%+ of all transactions.
I would guess the premium is closer to $5K, the difference from the $48K ATP for all transactions. Those are 90%+ of all transactions.
> The number that you appear to be referring to $44K, is for non luxury vehicles, which is not directly comparable to the EV category.
I mean, that's the comparison that matters to most people. The vast majority of cars are not luxury cars. Just because EVs target a little up-market, that doesn't exempt them from the reality that they're being compared to ICE cars in lower price categories by most buyers.
I mean, that's the comparison that matters to most people. The vast majority of cars are not luxury cars. Just because EVs target a little up-market, that doesn't exempt them from the reality that they're being compared to ICE cars in lower price categories by most buyers.
If looking for “cars for most buyers” then you may as well strip out the 100+k EV’s from these pools which then lowers the average.
I mean yeah, fair point. Average sale price of a category of car is probably a bad way to gauge affordability. A better question would be what percentile of car purchases do ev prices fall into.
I was looking at the new Mazda SUV, and the PHEV version was a $12k premium over the gas version. I have a PHEV and enjoy the benefits, but I’m not sure it’s worth an extra 12 grand (25% more than the regular version). I get that there are some cost savings in the long run, but electricity costs a lot where I live, and insurance costs also go up with a more expensive vehicle.
Same was true of the Prius for a long time. The market figures it out.
And what is the cost difference in fuel?
Gas is pretty expensive, and some EVs are cheap or even free to charge
How do total ownership costs compare?
Gas is pretty expensive, and some EVs are cheap or even free to charge
How do total ownership costs compare?
Varies based on how cheap your electricity is and expensive your gas is but my experience has been about $1000/yr in just gas savings according to my teslas calculations, we don’t commute with it tho, so it could pay off faster for commuters, but still on the order of years to break even.
A big difference is maintenance though. No oil changes, mechanical issues, etc. Just new tires when they’re worn out and occasional problems.
A big difference is maintenance though. No oil changes, mechanical issues, etc. Just new tires when they’re worn out and occasional problems.
I have a solar roof and live in a hot part of the US. I haven’t paid to charge my Tesla in more than 2 years (besides long road trips though I usually end up taking our ICE vehicle for those). I go through a tank of gas in roughly 10 days. That’s around $200 a month or $2500 a year. Also no oil changes/filter replacements adds up.
I recently compared low-end cars in the US by 10-year cost of ownership, including purchase price, tax incentives, etc. A new Bolt was cheaper than even a pre-owned Civic.
Please show you math on that one. I can find plenty of used Honda Civics on craigslist for well under 10K.
How are you getting a new Bolt (29K MSRP) for less?
How are you getting a new Bolt (29K MSRP) for less?
My post is about the cumulative cost over ten years, not only the purchase price. And naturally it depends on the condition of the car you're comparing. You could find a broken civic for less than 1k!
I chose to compare a 2016 Civic with ~60k miles to the 2023 Bolt with ~0 miles. The market price for the Civic is ~18k [0], and the lowest for which you can realistically get a Bolt is the EUV for ~32k [1]. I also considered 12.5k in state and federal tax breaks, which decrease the purchase price of the Bolt to 19.5k.
Here is a cumulative vehicle cost calculator https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/ It makes a graph, from which we can look at the value for year 10.
Add a 2023 Bolt, and a 2016 Civic. Change the price of the Bolt to $19.5k, and the Civic to 18k. Choose your state for energy prices. You may also change the gas price or the number of miles you drive. Click Get Results.
My results are Civic: 52k, and Bolt: 45k. That's assuming that the ratio between gas and energy prices doesn't change in the next ten years.
[0]: The site itself pulls a value of 18,640 from somewhere, but my 18k value came from online listings. My wife looked for these, and I think she mainly used KBB.
[1]: The Bolt EV cannot be purchased, only the EUV. I called about 20 dealerships. After 3 weeks I had gotten several offers to buy vehicles for 32k and higher, but none lower.
I chose to compare a 2016 Civic with ~60k miles to the 2023 Bolt with ~0 miles. The market price for the Civic is ~18k [0], and the lowest for which you can realistically get a Bolt is the EUV for ~32k [1]. I also considered 12.5k in state and federal tax breaks, which decrease the purchase price of the Bolt to 19.5k.
Here is a cumulative vehicle cost calculator https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/ It makes a graph, from which we can look at the value for year 10.
Add a 2023 Bolt, and a 2016 Civic. Change the price of the Bolt to $19.5k, and the Civic to 18k. Choose your state for energy prices. You may also change the gas price or the number of miles you drive. Click Get Results.
My results are Civic: 52k, and Bolt: 45k. That's assuming that the ratio between gas and energy prices doesn't change in the next ten years.
[0]: The site itself pulls a value of 18,640 from somewhere, but my 18k value came from online listings. My wife looked for these, and I think she mainly used KBB.
[1]: The Bolt EV cannot be purchased, only the EUV. I called about 20 dealerships. After 3 weeks I had gotten several offers to buy vehicles for 32k and higher, but none lower.
Can't access the website, but you are likely aren't including depreciation. To me, it looks like you are trying to prove your point without actually making a fair comparison.
Also, a Civic is a much better car than a Bolt, it's a silly comparison to make. You should compare a Bolt with a car with similar features like space, how it feels to drive one etc.
Also, a Civic is a much better car than a Bolt, it's a silly comparison to make. You should compare a Bolt with a car with similar features like space, how it feels to drive one etc.
The comparison is on cost. It is explicitly not a goal to include something like how it feels to drive one. I don't like cars, and none of them feel good to drive. I don't want a car, but I have to own one for transportation. I want to own the cheapest one I can that can still reasonably and safely get me around. I don't care that you think it's ugly or whatever. I'm not using that as criteria.
You have no reason to question my motivation, and it's unreasonable to make up possible deficiencies you imagine my methodology might have without even attempting to understand what is there. I provided plenty of information. The link works.
Depreciation never enters into it, nor should it. The model is that you buy the car, drive it for ten years, and then add up how much you spent on everything: The original purchase, fuel, maintenance, insurace, registration, etc. The value of the vehicle at any point after you buy it is irrelevant. You never sell it. It simply ceases to exist at the end of ten years. If you think I should include a sale price in the model, it will not be favorable to the car that sells for 15k less at t=0 and is 7 years older. But I'm not including that, because it's not useful. I'm looking at the cost for driving a car for ten years. When I do, a new bolt is cheaper than a used civic.
The prices are very similar (18k vs 19.5k) after tax break. And the electric one costs a lot less to drive over time, so after ten years you spent less money. It's not complicated, and the math bears it out easily. I brought receipts. Just look at them. Or do it yourself. Or propose your own model.
You have no reason to question my motivation, and it's unreasonable to make up possible deficiencies you imagine my methodology might have without even attempting to understand what is there. I provided plenty of information. The link works.
Depreciation never enters into it, nor should it. The model is that you buy the car, drive it for ten years, and then add up how much you spent on everything: The original purchase, fuel, maintenance, insurace, registration, etc. The value of the vehicle at any point after you buy it is irrelevant. You never sell it. It simply ceases to exist at the end of ten years. If you think I should include a sale price in the model, it will not be favorable to the car that sells for 15k less at t=0 and is 7 years older. But I'm not including that, because it's not useful. I'm looking at the cost for driving a car for ten years. When I do, a new bolt is cheaper than a used civic.
The prices are very similar (18k vs 19.5k) after tax break. And the electric one costs a lot less to drive over time, so after ten years you spent less money. It's not complicated, and the math bears it out easily. I brought receipts. Just look at them. Or do it yourself. Or propose your own model.
> Depreciation never enters into it, nor should it.
Well that is not a realistic comparison. Residual value absolutely must be considered in the comparison.
(I don't know which car it would favor, didn't try to research that. But either way, you need to include the residual value in the computation.)
> It simply ceases to exist at the end of ten years.
I mean but of course it doesn't! The car doesn't evaporate. You can sell it after those 10 years and get some money back. It's not realistic to just ignore that.
Well that is not a realistic comparison. Residual value absolutely must be considered in the comparison.
(I don't know which car it would favor, didn't try to research that. But either way, you need to include the residual value in the computation.)
> It simply ceases to exist at the end of ten years.
I mean but of course it doesn't! The car doesn't evaporate. You can sell it after those 10 years and get some money back. It's not realistic to just ignore that.
You're right, the model would be improved by adding depreciation. I suspect it would increase the disparity, making the Bolt even cheaper. But I don't know that without looking into it more. I think I will at least look at the topic when I do this again next year. Thanks for bringing it up to me.
There are lots of other things not included in the model, too. I would need to pay a contractor to add a 240 outlet to my garage, which will be like $500 since it's next to the breaker box. I will also spend hours of my life waiting for the car to charge during trips over those ten years. I bet people probably underestimate how much that will suck before they buy an EV. I could include a healthcare cost adjustment due to safety ratings, the impact of which I probably grossly underestimate.
I think the biggest omission is change in the gas:electricity price ratio over ten years. Using current values for the whole ten years is a mistake, considering it's the main difference between the options and is likely to change a lot.
edit: also I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post. I didn't mean for it to sound that way.
There are lots of other things not included in the model, too. I would need to pay a contractor to add a 240 outlet to my garage, which will be like $500 since it's next to the breaker box. I will also spend hours of my life waiting for the car to charge during trips over those ten years. I bet people probably underestimate how much that will suck before they buy an EV. I could include a healthcare cost adjustment due to safety ratings, the impact of which I probably grossly underestimate.
I think the biggest omission is change in the gas:electricity price ratio over ten years. Using current values for the whole ten years is a mistake, considering it's the main difference between the options and is likely to change a lot.
edit: also I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post. I didn't mean for it to sound that way.
> I suspect it would increase the disparity, making the Bolt even cheaper.
Depends, but depreciation generally benefits older cars and hurts new cars.
If you buy a Civic that has depreciated to 5-6K, there's not a lot of room to depreciate more. Unless it completely dies, you can use it for a long time and it's still worth 3-5K. Occasionally older cars even go up in value. I bought an Acura for 6K and sold it for 6K almost 15 years later. I bought a Mazda for 3K and sold it for 6K nine years later.
New cars are the worst for depreciation, the moment you drive out the dealer lot it's worth thousands less. And over a few years, the depreciation curve is quite steep until it flattens later. Very brand/model dependent so YMMV.
Depends, but depreciation generally benefits older cars and hurts new cars.
If you buy a Civic that has depreciated to 5-6K, there's not a lot of room to depreciate more. Unless it completely dies, you can use it for a long time and it's still worth 3-5K. Occasionally older cars even go up in value. I bought an Acura for 6K and sold it for 6K almost 15 years later. I bought a Mazda for 3K and sold it for 6K nine years later.
New cars are the worst for depreciation, the moment you drive out the dealer lot it's worth thousands less. And over a few years, the depreciation curve is quite steep until it flattens later. Very brand/model dependent so YMMV.
Factoring in government incentives is a tricky thing. See college loan forgiveness.
I already own an EV and can't cash in retroactively on the latest government incentive without purchasing another. But I could probably find some loop hole and sell my used EV to my neighbor, then buy my neighbor's identical EV and we both qualify. We don't exchange any money, but each file for some thousands of dollars from the government.
If the government lets even the purchase of used vehicles qualify, and lets you qualify, say, once a year... my neighbor and I can just keep trading cars every year and get paid.
But that doesn't seem to be any valuable way to calculate TCO.
I already own an EV and can't cash in retroactively on the latest government incentive without purchasing another. But I could probably find some loop hole and sell my used EV to my neighbor, then buy my neighbor's identical EV and we both qualify. We don't exchange any money, but each file for some thousands of dollars from the government.
If the government lets even the purchase of used vehicles qualify, and lets you qualify, say, once a year... my neighbor and I can just keep trading cars every year and get paid.
But that doesn't seem to be any valuable way to calculate TCO.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/used-clean-vehicle-cr...
> Beginning January 1, 2023, if you buy a qualified used electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) from a licensed dealer for $25,000 or less, you may be eligible for a used clean vehicle tax credit (also referred to as a previously owned clean vehicle credit). The credit equals 30% of the sale price up to a maximum credit of $4,000.
They have to be a licensed dealer, and the benefit is a portion of the sale price.
> Beginning January 1, 2023, if you buy a qualified used electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) from a licensed dealer for $25,000 or less, you may be eligible for a used clean vehicle tax credit (also referred to as a previously owned clean vehicle credit). The credit equals 30% of the sale price up to a maximum credit of $4,000.
They have to be a licensed dealer, and the benefit is a portion of the sale price.
> Change the price of the Bolt to $19.5k, and the Civic to 18k
Ok if that's your starting point your numbers make sense.
Are you sure about 12.5K in tax rebates? Sounds high. My partner just bought a VW EV a few months ago and didn't qualify for a single penny in rebates.
So for me the comparison would be Bolt at full $32K vs. a $6-$8K Civic since I like to buy cheaper used cars.
Ok if that's your starting point your numbers make sense.
Are you sure about 12.5K in tax rebates? Sounds high. My partner just bought a VW EV a few months ago and didn't qualify for a single penny in rebates.
So for me the comparison would be Bolt at full $32K vs. a $6-$8K Civic since I like to buy cheaper used cars.
I didn't pull the trigger, and thus didn't pay a tax person to tell me for sure, but I am fairly certain of the rebate.
For the federal credit, only some EVs qualify, and the list changes each year. You also have to have a tax burden within a certain range. The credit for used vehicles has different requirements, too. Starting next year, you get the rebate back as cash from the dealership at the time of purchase, which is nice.
My state offers a 5k credit for new EVs costing under 80k with no other strings. Next year they're adding 2500 more if the cost is under 35k.
> So for me the comparison would be Bolt at full $32K vs. a $6-$8K Civic since I like to buy cheaper used cars.
A no-brainer at those values, for sure! The last vehicle I bought was a 6 year old Focus for $7k. Because my family has changed since then, I was looking at used cars in the 15k range instead of under 10k
I would never have even considered a new car if the tax credit hadn't pulled the Bolt down into a range that made it competitive. All of the other EVs either cost too much initially, or didn't qualify for the credit. Also a lot of them had really small driving distances on one charge, which surprised me.
Another thing I found surprising, was that some people purportedly purchase a new EV each year for the tax credit. They drive it for a year, and sell it next year at a small profit. Market liquidity not totally accounting for the credit value (varies by model). I am far too risk-averse to do such a thing.
For the federal credit, only some EVs qualify, and the list changes each year. You also have to have a tax burden within a certain range. The credit for used vehicles has different requirements, too. Starting next year, you get the rebate back as cash from the dealership at the time of purchase, which is nice.
My state offers a 5k credit for new EVs costing under 80k with no other strings. Next year they're adding 2500 more if the cost is under 35k.
> So for me the comparison would be Bolt at full $32K vs. a $6-$8K Civic since I like to buy cheaper used cars.
A no-brainer at those values, for sure! The last vehicle I bought was a 6 year old Focus for $7k. Because my family has changed since then, I was looking at used cars in the 15k range instead of under 10k
I would never have even considered a new car if the tax credit hadn't pulled the Bolt down into a range that made it competitive. All of the other EVs either cost too much initially, or didn't qualify for the credit. Also a lot of them had really small driving distances on one charge, which surprised me.
Another thing I found surprising, was that some people purportedly purchase a new EV each year for the tax credit. They drive it for a year, and sell it next year at a small profit. Market liquidity not totally accounting for the credit value (varies by model). I am far too risk-averse to do such a thing.
> Gas is pretty expensive, and some EVs are cheap or even free to charge
How are you charging an EV for free?
I know some employers offer that, if you have a sweet deal like that I get it, but that is not the norm.
Here in Silicon Valley with daytime electricity being 73c/kWh thanks to PG&E, charging is pretty expensive too.
How are you charging an EV for free?
I know some employers offer that, if you have a sweet deal like that I get it, but that is not the norm.
Here in Silicon Valley with daytime electricity being 73c/kWh thanks to PG&E, charging is pretty expensive too.
Employer is one option, but free L2 charging isn't that rare around me in Southern California. A lot of grocery stores, pharmacies, department stores and similar businesses use free charging to differentiate themselves from competitors.
Interesting. In this area there are no free public chargers. The best one we've found is at Whole Foods but it was around 60c/kWh (don't have my notes here for exact price).
Maybe because there are so many EVs in norcal that businesses can't afford to make these free.
Maybe because there are so many EVs in norcal that businesses can't afford to make these free.
Wow, that's crazy. The L2 chargers around me are mostly around $1-$2/hr, so around 20-30 cents per kWh (that's around the same as the residential electricity price, so I imagine Chargepoint & Friends are getting a better rate)
Where are you getting that figure? $0.73/kWh is insane. Rates in Hawaii (known for expensive electricity) are like 1/3 of that.
I can't find anything close to that on this rate sheet (current as of June 1, 2023: https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/customer-service/...
I can't find anything close to that on this rate sheet (current as of June 1, 2023: https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/customer-service/...
I get the number from my October'23 PG&E bill in front of me.
I'm on the EV2A plan. The numbers on that website link are not what they charge on the actual bill. I don't know why they are allowed to publish fake numbers.
Here are the exact numbers from my October bill:
Peak rate: 58.4 delivery + 14.8 generation = 73.2 c/kWh
Part peak: 47.4 delivery + 8.3 generation = 55.7 c/kWh
Off-peak: 27.2 delivery + 7.1 generation = 34.4 c/kWh
I'm on the EV2A plan. The numbers on that website link are not what they charge on the actual bill. I don't know why they are allowed to publish fake numbers.
Here are the exact numbers from my October bill:
Peak rate: 58.4 delivery + 14.8 generation = 73.2 c/kWh
Part peak: 47.4 delivery + 8.3 generation = 55.7 c/kWh
Off-peak: 27.2 delivery + 7.1 generation = 34.4 c/kWh
Is that before the $7500 federal tax credit and potential states credits?
> EDIT: $53,469, just shy of a $10k premium over ICE vehicles.
I'm guessing this doesn't account for the fact that you'll have to buy a new one every 5 years when the batteries go bad.
I'm guessing this doesn't account for the fact that you'll have to buy a new one every 5 years when the batteries go bad.
Weird, I guess I didn't drive my 2013 Leaf with original batteries 100 miles today.
Good thing literally every EV has an 8 year battery warranty minimum
Oh no 5-10% less range better throw the whole car out
This is just factually incorrect
Can you explain what made you write this comment?
I see it all the time on Facebook and I’d love to understand what drives people to spout misinformation about EVs. Cobalt, fires, diesel powered charging stations, they simply can’t wait to spread some nonsense.
I see it all the time on Facebook and I’d love to understand what drives people to spout misinformation about EVs. Cobalt, fires, diesel powered charging stations, they simply can’t wait to spread some nonsense.
I mean the OP is exagerating wildly, but the range does decrease. We had a Fiat 500 leased for 3 years and in just 3 years the range decreased from ~90 to about 75 (almost 20% decrease).
Not doubting you, and different manufacturers are doing different things - e.g. Nissan did a pretty good job of putting people off EVs by not watercooling their batteries, but some info below:
> Tesla Battery Life
> How long does a Tesla battery last? The data shows that a typical Tesla battery will last in excess of 10 years. We say this with some degree of confidence because even the 10-year-old batteries were still delivering around 80% of the original range.
> Tesla Battery Replacement Cost UK
> The team at NimbleFins has made some calls and been given ballpark figures to get a Tesla battery replacement starting from £8,000 plus labour (from one Tesla repair centre) and £10,000 including labour (from an independent repair shop). We've heard some readers think the figure could be even higher.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla-battery-d...
My Tesla costs 3p/mile to run with sentry mode on etc. If we generously say that a diesel would be 12p/mile the fuel savings over 120,000 miles would cover the cost of a new battery. Assuming 80% isn’t enough at that point and that battery costs remain the same. Lots of variables in there of course.
> Tesla Battery Life
> How long does a Tesla battery last? The data shows that a typical Tesla battery will last in excess of 10 years. We say this with some degree of confidence because even the 10-year-old batteries were still delivering around 80% of the original range.
> Tesla Battery Replacement Cost UK
> The team at NimbleFins has made some calls and been given ballpark figures to get a Tesla battery replacement starting from £8,000 plus labour (from one Tesla repair centre) and £10,000 including labour (from an independent repair shop). We've heard some readers think the figure could be even higher.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/study-real-life-tesla-battery-d...
My Tesla costs 3p/mile to run with sentry mode on etc. If we generously say that a diesel would be 12p/mile the fuel savings over 120,000 miles would cover the cost of a new battery. Assuming 80% isn’t enough at that point and that battery costs remain the same. Lots of variables in there of course.
Coming from a more practical background, it is hard for me to want to spend 40k+ for a vehicle.
I am looking at getting two vehicles in the coming years: A commuter, and a vehicle that can carry stuff (lumber, soil, etc).
For the commuter I am looking at the 2024 Chevy Equinox (~starting mrsp 30k),or the 2023 Chevy Bolt (~starting mrsp 28k). With the IRA $7500 rebate, and the cheaper fuel costs, makes it attractive, with solid range too.
To carry stuff, I am looking at the 2023 hybrid Ford Maverick, a double-cab small/medium sized pickup truck goind for $22.6k starting msrp...which clocks in as the cheapest hybrid vehicle on the new market. 42 city 33 highway mpg.
I applaud these more modest and affordable entries into the fuel efficient market.
To carry stuff, I am looking at the 2023 hybrid Ford Maverick, a double-cab small/medium sized pickup truck goind for $22.6k starting msrp...which clocks in as the cheapest hybrid vehicle on the new market. 42 city 33 highway mpg.
I applaud these more modest and affordable entries into the fuel efficient market.
I remember buying a Nissan mini pickup for 7000 back in I want to say 1993, I wonder how much of the increase in cost is the safety and emissions improvements versus inflation or just feature creep in vehicles.
Well, inflation makes that $7000 equal to $13,423.82 based on https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
You’re also going to have to adjust for profit margins of car manufacturers back then to now, as surely productivity (use of labor and resources through automation) have allowed for them to do more with less materials.
The inflation calculation is also an average and stuff like cars made with steel might have more inflation due to scarcity or cost increases of making steel.
Then I’d say whatever left over is the actual increase in cost of making a car now vs then due to added functionality (including R&D for cars to be safer or more fuel efficient). Although maybe someone else can point out if I’m missing something else to consider.
You’re also going to have to adjust for profit margins of car manufacturers back then to now, as surely productivity (use of labor and resources through automation) have allowed for them to do more with less materials.
The inflation calculation is also an average and stuff like cars made with steel might have more inflation due to scarcity or cost increases of making steel.
Then I’d say whatever left over is the actual increase in cost of making a car now vs then due to added functionality (including R&D for cars to be safer or more fuel efficient). Although maybe someone else can point out if I’m missing something else to consider.
> double-cab small/medium sized pickup truck
From a EU perspective that vehicle is nowhere near the "small/medium" scale, even for a truck.
I recall watching some documentary about a guy who tried driving from the US to Brazil or something and cross some jungle. At some point he had to rent a car and all he could get his hand on was a Toyota Land Cruiser, which he immediately dismissed as being a small toy SUV barely any good for dirty roads and should be kept for suburbs.
> goind for $22.6k starting msrp
Is that because it's a truck? I seem to recall there's this weird US thing where trucks are on the cheap side because of whatever law or something.
From a EU perspective that vehicle is nowhere near the "small/medium" scale, even for a truck.
I recall watching some documentary about a guy who tried driving from the US to Brazil or something and cross some jungle. At some point he had to rent a car and all he could get his hand on was a Toyota Land Cruiser, which he immediately dismissed as being a small toy SUV barely any good for dirty roads and should be kept for suburbs.
> goind for $22.6k starting msrp
Is that because it's a truck? I seem to recall there's this weird US thing where trucks are on the cheap side because of whatever law or something.
Buddy good luck getting an Equinox. That car is going to be vaporware for at least the next year and if you do manage to find one the dealer markup will be 10k over MSRP.
And the “around 30k msrp” they quoted is so far a wish and dream. Chevy already dropped the bottom trim of their other new EV because they didn’t think it was profitable enough.
And the “around 30k msrp” they quoted is so far a wish and dream. Chevy already dropped the bottom trim of their other new EV because they didn’t think it was profitable enough.
I real put wish a single vehicle existed that combined those two things.
Golf can carry bagged soil no problem, though it needs roof racks for lumber.
I got a golf thinking I’d rent a pickup when I need to carry something big, but so far haven’t come across anything that required it.
I got a golf thinking I’d rent a pickup when I need to carry something big, but so far haven’t come across anything that required it.
The problem there is that bagged soil is very expensive, and has to be trucked around a couple times to get it to the store. I picked up like 3 cu yds of compost/topsoil mix from a local horse farm for about 1/5 of the price. Can’t top load into a car/suv.
Trucks are useful but I do wish shared ownership were more convenient, because a ton of miles driven in trucks are not for any of those uses.
Trucks are useful but I do wish shared ownership were more convenient, because a ton of miles driven in trucks are not for any of those uses.
Re: Shared ownership: 99.9% of people who think they need a used F150 off of Craigslist can actually get away with renting one from their local UHaul or Home Depot the few times a month that they need it, and it'll still be way cheaper than ownership.
A roof rack can't carry much weight, check manufacturer load ratings.
Pickup are useful for projects. Recently redid a fence, bought over 2000lb of lumber.
These weekends doing concrete walkway work, bought ~3500lb of concrete bags in one trip (way more than the weight of my commuter car!)
Pickup are useful for projects. Recently redid a fence, bought over 2000lb of lumber.
These weekends doing concrete walkway work, bought ~3500lb of concrete bags in one trip (way more than the weight of my commuter car!)
Sorry, but those are not small personal projects. Just pay the 20/40/100$ to have it delivered by a professional vehicle or transport company that has economies of scale instead of buying a 3 ton capacity vehicle as your daily driver.
Just the time it takes to drive to the store, get that loaded and secured, delivered, offloaded etc. You're already at the 1-2 hour mark. Now the labour, cost of all those calories you burnt. Makes my brain hurt even thinking about the waste.
Just the time it takes to drive to the store, get that loaded and secured, delivered, offloaded etc. You're already at the 1-2 hour mark. Now the labour, cost of all those calories you burnt. Makes my brain hurt even thinking about the waste.
> Sorry, but those are not small personal projects.
Small projects for a tiny suburban house. A pallet of cement isn't that much, only about 10ft of walkway.
> Just pay the 20/40/100$
See above. Delivering a ~$300 pallet costs $200.
> daily driver
Certainly not a daily driver. It's a truck for projects and towing.
Small projects for a tiny suburban house. A pallet of cement isn't that much, only about 10ft of walkway.
> Just pay the 20/40/100$
See above. Delivering a ~$300 pallet costs $200.
> daily driver
Certainly not a daily driver. It's a truck for projects and towing.
Can't you get that stuff delivered. I'm in the UK and anything like that I pay the supplier to ship. It's way cheaper than buying a specific vehicle for it.
You can but it's not cheap. A pallet of cement bags is ~$300, delivery is $200. Or I can pick it up myself for free in 10 minutes.
Of course if you only do that once a year and do nothing else, it's not worth having a truck. For me, I pick up things couple times a month at least and also use it for towing a travel trailer (which you often can't contractually do with many rental trucks).
Of course if you only do that once a year and do nothing else, it's not worth having a truck. For me, I pick up things couple times a month at least and also use it for towing a travel trailer (which you often can't contractually do with many rental trucks).
Fingers crossed for a Maverick EV, it's the perfect size
EV truck, Model Y with seats down, or other efficient hatchback like Prius
I can fit 8' lumber or hundreds of pounds of soil in my Prius. That covers over 95% of my needs as a DIY homeowner. When I need 10' lumber, I rent a truck for $60 and a half hour of my time, which is more than paid for by the cheaper operating costs and insurance. When you throw in the purchase price, owning a second vehicle just to move large/heavy objects doesn't make sense unless you do it multiple times a week for a few years.
I also put a 50 gallon home water heater in my Prius. Agree that a second vehicle, like a truck, isn't worth it as it will easily cost several hundred $ extra per month for limited uses.
To be clear, I didn't want the vehicle just for moving stuff. Life is a lot easier for two working parents if there are two vehicles.
Sorry, I did not intend to imply that was your case. I was more responding to a the reply (whether sarcastic or not) wishing that a car existed that combined both commuter and "move stuff" characteristics. I know an alarming number of people who do actually have a second "move stuff" vehicle, and my partner took months to convince to sell our second vehicle which was being (dis)used exclusively for "move stuff" after we relocated to a city with good bike and transit options.
For a commuter I'd want tiny and fuel efficient, for a hauling truck I want towing and hauling capacity. Very opposite ends of the car spectrum, how could you combine that.
Depending on what you carry, a Renault Kangoo or American equivalent is just fantastic. It's a box on wheels that's insanely cheap to run.
American equivalent would probably be the Ford Transit Connect
Now we're getting somewhere.
Although I'm still seeing $15K of "additional dealer profit" stickers at a Jeep/Ford dealer in Silicon Valley.
Although I'm still seeing $15K of "additional dealer profit" stickers at a Jeep/Ford dealer in Silicon Valley.
> Although I'm still seeing $15K of "additional dealer profit" stickers at a Jeep/Ford dealer in Silicon Valley.
Dealerships may not be the _most_ contemptible rent-seekers in our society but they're up there.
Dealerships may not be the _most_ contemptible rent-seekers in our society but they're up there.
The Jeep 4xe models are actually selling below MSRP here in Colorado with "dealer discounts" (separate from any tax incentives) between 3 and 7%. Time for a roadtrip?
Yup. I popped into the Jeep/Ram dealer in Longmont, CO the other day and they had rows upon rows upon rows of 4xe Wranglers parked on their lot. Based on their websites, every other Jeep dealer in the area is in the same boat.
Stellantis dealers are flush with inventory right now and it's a buyers market if you're interested in any of their products.
Stellantis dealers are flush with inventory right now and it's a buyers market if you're interested in any of their products.
Deals abound for 4xes. I was originally planning on doing a custom order for a 2-door 2.0T gas-only model, but after I test drove a 4xe at a dealer near DC, I decided to buy it instead. It's great fun to drive a silent Jeep, it has power on tap with all three motors running, and with below MSRP pricing it was too hard to say no. I can do my 20 mile commute on a charge, barely, even after installing 35s.
If you meant to write Jeep/Ram, then think I know which dealer.
They have been doing it for over a decade. (Probably since they were selling buggies or whatever.)
Just go somewhere else.
They have been doing it for over a decade. (Probably since they were selling buggies or whatever.)
Just go somewhere else.
Oh, are you seeing the "market value adjustment fee" add ons as well? Truly mind blowing, and really feels like it's an incredibly dumb tax evasion trick
It's probably expensive to have a giant lot full of cars in SV.
Can't wait for 51% tipping point for EV on the road, any chance by 2030?
Not just exhaust pollution eliminated but because of regenerative braking there is far less PM2.5 brakepad dust flying around at intersections.
Just like banning leaded gas in cars improved health for the next generation I think 51% EV will do similar.
Not just exhaust pollution eliminated but because of regenerative braking there is far less PM2.5 brakepad dust flying around at intersections.
Just like banning leaded gas in cars improved health for the next generation I think 51% EV will do similar.
EVs are much heavier than ICE vehicles. The extra weight leads to much greater wear on tires per mile of travel. This leads to a substantial increase in tire dust - a significant pollutant.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/elect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/elect...
It'd be good to see some numbers because that article is pretty vague on where the fault lies. A Tesla 3 is about the same weight as my Ford Mondeo, same shape car. The article points out that (a) Americans buy larger cars than are perhaps necessary and (b) it's the acceleration that causes an issue too. Nowhere is it saying how much worse the problem is. I would say this is a low quality article.
That’s not really supported by evidence. Among other points against, tire dust scales linearly with weight and EVs are only about 20% heavier then comparable ICEs (e.g. model 3 vs Camry). That’s not even accounting for regenerative braking.
https://dynomight.net/tires/
https://dynomight.net/tires/
> That’s not even accounting for regenerative braking.
That has no relation to tire wear rubber dust.
It's not controversial that a heavier car that accelerates faster will wear out tires much faster (thus generate more rubber particles into the air).
Sure, EVs generate way less brake pad dust. But that's a tiny contribution to pollution. Brake pads are tiny compared to tires and in over 100K I've yet to wear out the brake pads on my ICE minivan but I've changed tires three times.
That has no relation to tire wear rubber dust.
It's not controversial that a heavier car that accelerates faster will wear out tires much faster (thus generate more rubber particles into the air).
Sure, EVs generate way less brake pad dust. But that's a tiny contribution to pollution. Brake pads are tiny compared to tires and in over 100K I've yet to wear out the brake pads on my ICE minivan but I've changed tires three times.
"Much more" is misleading. The difference is usually 10%-20%, less than weight variance among gas cars. Tesla Model 3 weighs about the same as an ICE Ford Mustang.
Tire particles are relatively heavy and don't stay in the air, unlike smaller molecules and emission from combustion.
If weight was a real concern, non-business pickup trucks and large SUVs should be banned regardless of the engine they use.
Tire particles are relatively heavy and don't stay in the air, unlike smaller molecules and emission from combustion.
If weight was a real concern, non-business pickup trucks and large SUVs should be banned regardless of the engine they use.
This "point" gets parroted everywhere EVs come up, but the proof is basically nonexistant or misleading at best.
But not brake dust.
>Can't wait for 51% tipping point for EV on the road, any chance by 2030?
Depends on where you are. I'm in Shenzen right now and it's very close or at 50%. There are definitely more new electric cars than ICE cars on the road. For example, 90% of my Didi (China's Uber) rides have been electric cars.
I believe all of the city's buses are electric as well. Some people drive motorbikes here and they're all electric.
The difference in air quality between today and 6 years ago when I last visited is huge.
Depends on where you are. I'm in Shenzen right now and it's very close or at 50%. There are definitely more new electric cars than ICE cars on the road. For example, 90% of my Didi (China's Uber) rides have been electric cars.
I believe all of the city's buses are electric as well. Some people drive motorbikes here and they're all electric.
The difference in air quality between today and 6 years ago when I last visited is huge.
No way it happens by then. We might see at best half of new cars sold being electric, but there are still a lot of not-new cars in the fleet.
Are we at the 50 percentile for hybrids?
I feel like we are at a point where we should require most new ICE vehicles to be hybrid.
Going from 25 to 50+ mpg is a huge reduction in emissions, and easily achievable.
> Going from 25 to 50+ mpg is a huge reduction in emissions
Something that depresses me is that a 1988 Honda CRX HF did 50MPG. Yes, 1988. Thirty-five years ago.
That's with extremely primitive engine management. If society had continued improving that line of development, I bet we'd have 100MPG cars today.
Instead, things went in a direction of extremely heavy cars which means much worse mileage.
Something that depresses me is that a 1988 Honda CRX HF did 50MPG. Yes, 1988. Thirty-five years ago.
That's with extremely primitive engine management. If society had continued improving that line of development, I bet we'd have 100MPG cars today.
Instead, things went in a direction of extremely heavy cars which means much worse mileage.
yeah. I really don't understand this. if back in 2015 we'd gotten legislation requiring regenerative braking and 1 mile plug in range for new vehicles it would have a noticable effect on global emissions
We're mostly trading brake dust for tire particulates so we should keep that in mind but at least the tailpipe emission reduction helps a lot of other air quality issues
EV share on US roads is only about 5% (by VMT, i.e. if you stand on the corner and count cars). The median age of cars on the road is ~13 years. Market share for EVs is about 8% of new sales. You do the math, but for me it doesn't look like anywhere near 50% in America by 2030 unless they literally outlaw oil.
> Can't wait for 51% tipping point for EV on the road, any chance by 2030?
Depends on the country. Also: not a chance for most of them. Main reasons:
- EVs are significantly more expensive
- There's no charging infrastructure to speak of in most countries
Depends on the country. Also: not a chance for most of them. Main reasons:
- EVs are significantly more expensive
- There's no charging infrastructure to speak of in most countries
> EVs are significantly more expensive
The point of the article is how that's quickly going to no longer be the case
> There's no charging infrastructure to speak of in most countries
Solvable in single-digit numbers of years, even the US which is a sloth at building infra is doing fine scaling up its charging and distribution network
The point of the article is how that's quickly going to no longer be the case
> There's no charging infrastructure to speak of in most countries
Solvable in single-digit numbers of years, even the US which is a sloth at building infra is doing fine scaling up its charging and distribution network
> Solvable in single-digit numbers of years, even the US which is a sloth at building infra is doing fine scaling up its charging and distribution network
US is much faster than, say, Sweden. And "single digit years" brings us to 2030 at least if the pace picks up.
I live in a Stockholm suburb [1]. In the past 4-5 years the number of charging stations remained at 20, and all the new construction in the vicinity has 0 parking spots fitted with chargers as developers claim it's too costly, and existing infrastructure doesn't permit it.
[1] No, it's not a US suburb. It's a European suburb with high-rise/multi-story apartment buildings, and new construction also being mostly multi-story apartment buildings. Thinks this: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.2775628,17.8994667,3a,75y,20... and not the American cul de sacs
Even the brand new districts like https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3066523,18.031298,3a,75y,152... have essentially zero charging stations in their underground parking lots.
US is much faster than, say, Sweden. And "single digit years" brings us to 2030 at least if the pace picks up.
I live in a Stockholm suburb [1]. In the past 4-5 years the number of charging stations remained at 20, and all the new construction in the vicinity has 0 parking spots fitted with chargers as developers claim it's too costly, and existing infrastructure doesn't permit it.
[1] No, it's not a US suburb. It's a European suburb with high-rise/multi-story apartment buildings, and new construction also being mostly multi-story apartment buildings. Thinks this: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.2775628,17.8994667,3a,75y,20... and not the American cul de sacs
Even the brand new districts like https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3066523,18.031298,3a,75y,152... have essentially zero charging stations in their underground parking lots.
Don't know if this metric means much. I leased 3 Leafs in the past 7 years at ~ $200 / month average. Now the cheapest Leaf was going for $290, so I went with a Kia Niro EV at $350/mo instead (more range, more features).
We need to get cheap EV lease offers back out there if we want folks to keep switching.
We need to get cheap EV lease offers back out there if we want folks to keep switching.
Inflation and high interest rates are the reason.
Still, when they consider a "low priced" EV to be $30K, it's still out of most peoplels reach...
I am not sure how it's out of reach for most people when the average price of new car in USA is like $48,000.
Sure, you might say the average price is skewed by people buying expensive trucks. But even Camry costs like $35-36k after dealer markups - you can get Tesla model 3 for like 32k now after federal rebate.
Sure, you might say the average price is skewed by people buying expensive trucks. But even Camry costs like $35-36k after dealer markups - you can get Tesla model 3 for like 32k now after federal rebate.
the average price of new gas cars is also out of reach for most people. But your point is valid, EVs aren't really all that different in price anymore.
Recently was thinking that new trucks being completely out of reach of prudent wage earners is behind the inane trend of silly big trucks that are increasingly less useful for ordinary truck stuff. That was triggered by an article discussing how a number of industries depend on 'whales' for half or more of their sales. Like how 10% of people drink half the booze. Perhaps most new trucks are bought by people with too much money and too little impulse control.
What is the median new car cost?
If you're looking to remove outliers, Kelley Blue Book also tracks the average (likely mean) of new non-luxury vehicle sales, which was $44,626 in September. Non-luxury is about 80% of sales.
Also, concerning the lower end of sales:
"But the news isn’t all good. Only one car sold for an average price under $20,000 last month. The Mitsubishi Mirage’s average transaction price in July was $19,205.
Every other car with a list price under $20,000 sold for over $20,000 on average. It’s not a large group. Automakers increasingly focus on building more expensive cars, trimming affordable models from their lineups. In December 2017, automakers produced 36 models priced at $25,000 or less. Five years later, they built just 10." [1]
[1] https://www.kbb.com/car-news/average-new-car-price-sees-smal...
Also, concerning the lower end of sales:
"But the news isn’t all good. Only one car sold for an average price under $20,000 last month. The Mitsubishi Mirage’s average transaction price in July was $19,205.
Every other car with a list price under $20,000 sold for over $20,000 on average. It’s not a large group. Automakers increasingly focus on building more expensive cars, trimming affordable models from their lineups. In December 2017, automakers produced 36 models priced at $25,000 or less. Five years later, they built just 10." [1]
[1] https://www.kbb.com/car-news/average-new-car-price-sees-smal...
That's somewhat helpful, especially the last two quoted sentences.
But for the other part they track luxury at the model level. If you get a jeep or truck that cost $50k-80k because you wanted heated/vented seats, a panoramic sunroof, etc then it's not included in luxury.
I think part of this is also inflation (seems like some sensational journalism dor modt of the articles I found - using average instead of mean and not using inflation). Inflation from December 2017 to December 2022 would mean a $20k car in 2017 would cost $24k in 2022 adjusted for inflation. That's a huge jump.
But for the other part they track luxury at the model level. If you get a jeep or truck that cost $50k-80k because you wanted heated/vented seats, a panoramic sunroof, etc then it's not included in luxury.
I think part of this is also inflation (seems like some sensational journalism dor modt of the articles I found - using average instead of mean and not using inflation). Inflation from December 2017 to December 2022 would mean a $20k car in 2017 would cost $24k in 2022 adjusted for inflation. That's a huge jump.
What percentage of people are buying new cars over used?
I make six figures, never bought a new car in my life and don't ever plan to. Most I've paid is $19K.
I make six figures, never bought a new car in my life and don't ever plan to. Most I've paid is $19K.
It will be interesting to see where EVs fit into the used car market, as the battery is a wear item and is responsible for a significant amount of the price of the car (i.e. what the price will be on a 10 year old EV that will require an $8000 replacement battery).
Yeah, it'll be an interesting to see in a decade. Maybe we'll have a healthy market of salvage/rebuilt/recycled batteries driving down the costs to "rebuild" an EV. Maybe we'll find out recycling batteries isn't what we thought.
If batteries drop in price, even like 20%, a "rebuilt" used EV could be incredibly cheap as its operating costs and risks of drivetrain failure could be incredibly low. Coupled with reduced energy costs if charging gets ubiquitous for non-homeowners, it could be really nice.
If batteries drop in price, even like 20%, a "rebuilt" used EV could be incredibly cheap as its operating costs and risks of drivetrain failure could be incredibly low. Coupled with reduced energy costs if charging gets ubiquitous for non-homeowners, it could be really nice.
Agreed. Perhaps a saving grace will be that run down EV batteries can be used for stationary storage on the electric grid. There's significant value there, but I haven't seen repurchase programs advertised. Maybe there just aren't enough used batteries available yet.
Cox Automotive (parent of KBB) estimates 35.2 million used [1] and 15.4 million new car sales in the US for 2023 [2]. So, about 30% buy new.
[1] https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/estimated-monthly...
[2] https://www.coxautoinc.com/news/cox-automotive-forecast-augu...
[1] https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/estimated-monthly...
[2] https://www.coxautoinc.com/news/cox-automotive-forecast-augu...
I have bad luck selecting good used cars. I pay the premium for new, and then keep them for at least ten years. The used cars I find are either totally shot mechanically, or have unpleasant smelling destroyed interiors. Or both in the case of the one I lost the most money on.
I suggest going for off-lease or rental fleet vehicles. They shouldn’t have either of the issues you mentioned, especially if you get one that is still covered by the manufacturer warranty.
I bought two cars new, and with all the recalls and factory defects, (and ignoring price and depreciation) they were way worse than the used ones I’ve had experience with.
I bought two cars new, and with all the recalls and factory defects, (and ignoring price and depreciation) they were way worse than the used ones I’ve had experience with.
> I make six figures, never bought a new car in my life and don't ever plan to. Most I've paid is $19K.
Yes, I'm in your demographic. Most I've ever paid for a car (a rare new one) was 20K. Nearly every car I've had (in over 30 years of having cars), I've bought for less than 10K.
I like cars and driving. But cars are a depreciating asset. Never worth spending much on. Buy the cheapest used one you can find.
Yes, I'm in your demographic. Most I've ever paid for a car (a rare new one) was 20K. Nearly every car I've had (in over 30 years of having cars), I've bought for less than 10K.
I like cars and driving. But cars are a depreciating asset. Never worth spending much on. Buy the cheapest used one you can find.
Well, I bought new car and old computer. For some reason I found $34K for car okay but $1000 for a computer too much. (I work in IT, if that matters).
A lot more used cars are sold, but the average price of a used car last year was $30,700.
I've always done that too but the used car market has been so insane lately that it might make more sense to consider new as well going forwards.
A base model 3 would cost me $25k in my state after IRA rebate.
Most Americans can absolutely afford a $30k car. Certainly not all at once, but definitely on a standard 60 month loan.
Do not mistake the word "most" for "all", unless you want to muddy the waters.
Do not mistake the word "most" for "all", unless you want to muddy the waters.
Not disagreeing but the phrase “standard 60 month loan” makes me cringe. 20 years ago more than 36 would have raised eyebrows.
72 is the new standard or so I'm told, and I've seen 84 listed as an option.
I don't think 4+ year loans were as uncommon in 2003 as you do. 1993 or 1983 maybe...
7-year loans, now... that's new.
But cars also last longer as well as costing more so... eh. I don't know what to make of it.
7-year loans, now... that's new.
But cars also last longer as well as costing more so... eh. I don't know what to make of it.
Pst, they can only afford it because of the 60 month loan, where you pay an astronomical amount in interest on top of the sticker price.
So no, they cannot. "Most" Americans are paying for a car based on what monthly payment they can afford, and never thinking about how much they actually owe.
So no, they cannot. "Most" Americans are paying for a car based on what monthly payment they can afford, and never thinking about how much they actually owe.
Astronomical in the APR sense would be roughly +20%-40% over the lifetime of the loan in this scenario, meaning $36k - $42k. Over 5 years.
So yes. Most Americans can afford this.
Easily.
So yes. Most Americans can afford this.
Easily.
> standard 60 month loan
That's.... crazy!
Car loans should be no more than 3 years.
But really, to be responsible, only ever buy a car with cash on hand. If you need a loan, find a cheaper car until you don't need a loan.
Once I bought a car with a loan but only because the manufacturer had a 0% interest offer.
That's.... crazy!
Car loans should be no more than 3 years.
But really, to be responsible, only ever buy a car with cash on hand. If you need a loan, find a cheaper car until you don't need a loan.
Once I bought a car with a loan but only because the manufacturer had a 0% interest offer.
A barebones Toyota Camry is $26,420.
Yeah the only sub-20k options are like a Nissan Sentra or Chevy Spark (do they still make those?) or something like that.
Even in Europe the small car options are disappearing. Ford discontinued the Fiesta recently, what had been the best selling car in the UK for years. VW have just announced they are stopping the Up.
I do wonder if the manufacturers are leaving the door open for Chinese manufacturers. They may come to regret this policy.
I do wonder if the manufacturers are leaving the door open for Chinese manufacturers. They may come to regret this policy.
Based on the political environment I think there is pretty much zero chance Chinese manufacturers are going to be allowed to take over a significant portion of the Western auto market.
They're brand new cars. There aren't many brand new cars cheaper than that. A new Toyota Corolla costs more than $30K.
In the UK there's MG4 that is a surprisingly decent BEV for £27K (that's a price without grants/incentives), but it probably won't be available in the US, since it's a Chinese-owned brand.
In the UK there's MG4 that is a surprisingly decent BEV for £27K (that's a price without grants/incentives), but it probably won't be available in the US, since it's a Chinese-owned brand.
The best selling vehicle in the US is the F-150 and most of them sell for well over $30k new.
30k is significantly less than avg priced internal combustion engine cars.
Depends how you measure.
If you enumerate the ICE cars for sale, the mean and median is much higher than 30k, yes.
If you enumerate the cars purchased in a given year (and ESPECIALLY if you include used cars), the median price paid for a car may be well under 30k.
If you enumerate the ICE cars for sale, the mean and median is much higher than 30k, yes.
If you enumerate the cars purchased in a given year (and ESPECIALLY if you include used cars), the median price paid for a car may be well under 30k.
ATP for a new car in July was $48,334. For used cars, it was $29,5k last quarter.
$30k is a lot of money for sure. But it does not get you much car these days, new or used.
$30k is a lot of money for sure. But it does not get you much car these days, new or used.
Again, that's skewed upwards because there's no upper bound on the price of an expensive new car, but the lower bound of a cheap new car is 0.
The mean price of a car, like the mean price of a house, is much less meaningful than the median.
The mean price of a car, like the mean price of a house, is much less meaningful than the median.
What’s the price of a low priced regular car though?
a nisaan versa is 16k msrp. a 30k toyota or honda will last you 20 years
I will laugh my way to the bank with my ten year old Toyota that has only required oil changes!
It hasn't just required oil changes. It also requires fuel, which is increasingly much, much more expensive than electricity.
Gas systems also degrade over time - MPG drops with the life of a vehicle, and it's not actually clear that behavior is much different from battery range loss...
Gas systems also degrade over time - MPG drops with the life of a vehicle, and it's not actually clear that behavior is much different from battery range loss...
I would like an EV.
But I have a 14 year old Honda Fit. Its MPG has not dropped at all over time. It has needed nothing but wear-and-tear maintanance and new spark plug coil things. 190k miles. Gas prices vary, but I have a car already, and it seems at least questionable that it is more environmentally sound that this vehicle remains in use till its true end of life. I am not particularly motivated by money, but I can buy a lot of gas for the cost of a new vehicle, so the cost argument feels weak.
But I have a 14 year old Honda Fit. Its MPG has not dropped at all over time. It has needed nothing but wear-and-tear maintanance and new spark plug coil things. 190k miles. Gas prices vary, but I have a car already, and it seems at least questionable that it is more environmentally sound that this vehicle remains in use till its true end of life. I am not particularly motivated by money, but I can buy a lot of gas for the cost of a new vehicle, so the cost argument feels weak.
> MPG drops with the life of a vehicle, and it's not actually clear that behavior is much different from battery range loss...
That's incorrect. Not sure where you heard that.
MPG drops, sure, but it's so little it's hardly worth measuring. My intra-city full-tank range on a previous petrol car I owned went from (when almost new) ~800km to (350000km later) ~780km.
No repairs other than services. The other cars I've owned show no measurable difference in range as wear increased.
That's incorrect. Not sure where you heard that.
MPG drops, sure, but it's so little it's hardly worth measuring. My intra-city full-tank range on a previous petrol car I owned went from (when almost new) ~800km to (350000km later) ~780km.
No repairs other than services. The other cars I've owned show no measurable difference in range as wear increased.
[deleted]
> MPG drops with the life of a vehicle
That is not true.
As a fan of older used cars, I would notice. It's not true.
That is not true.
As a fan of older used cars, I would notice. It's not true.
Sort of baited you. I drive a Prius. Great, I’ve gone 45 to 35 mpg :)
And EVs become expensive bricks in about 10 years time.
When they first came out, people claimed it was three years. Then five. None of it has come true.
Thats a myth.
or elon gets mad and turns off access to your car.
that's great. and it has good resale value. the engine will always be solid which we can't say for degrading batteries.
Source?
The Model Y and Model 3 have to be nearly 50% of EV sales. Model y prices went down a lot, so that probably weighs heavy on averages.
Father in law is a dealer mechanic. The sales guys he's talked to are saying no one wants EVs while ICE vehicles are flying off the shelves. I think most folks wanting an EV(I said most) go for a Tesla because of the relative value(and I say that as a Tesla hater and fan of non-Tesla EVs). Overall, most people don't seem to want EVs. I guess that changes if gas prices rise more.
It is worth pointing out the potential confirmation bias of a salesperson given the lack of good EV options available, unless this sales guy is at a dealer with multiple EVs at different price points they are likely just not talking to people who are looking to buy an EV.
Tesla you do online, and many people are shopping specifically for an EV, not going to a random dealer and considering it as an option alongside ICE vehicles.
Tesla you do online, and many people are shopping specifically for an EV, not going to a random dealer and considering it as an option alongside ICE vehicles.
With the Bolt gone the cheapest EV you can get is around 35k with most being 40k+
Lots of great, reliable gas options under 25k.
When there are EV choices at reasonable prices there will be tons of demand for them.
Lots of great, reliable gas options under 25k.
When there are EV choices at reasonable prices there will be tons of demand for them.
That's probably true but, also, I've stepped back on my enthusiasm for who I'd recommend them to now because of the charging situation.
It used to be not a huge deal to me charge on a road trip, a 20-30 minute break every few hours was actually really nice. But now, after the release of the Mustang, Ioniq 5 and EV6, I am regularly find chargers to be full and having to wait. My 30 minutes stops have turn to 45-60 minutes or longer because now I'm charging closer to 100% because I might need to the option to skip the next charger. And forget trying to take a road trip on a holiday weekend.
It used to be not a huge deal to me charge on a road trip, a 20-30 minute break every few hours was actually really nice. But now, after the release of the Mustang, Ioniq 5 and EV6, I am regularly find chargers to be full and having to wait. My 30 minutes stops have turn to 45-60 minutes or longer because now I'm charging closer to 100% because I might need to the option to skip the next charger. And forget trying to take a road trip on a holiday weekend.
I find this argument really alien to me. I'm personally not a huge "environmental" person but when I see this argument I substitute ICE car with horse, electric car with car, electricity with "fuel" and charging station with a fuel station. I'm sure when the ice car was new there weren't enough fuel stations, it was a chicken & egg problem.
I get what you're saying and I'm not planning on going back to ICE personally but a couple years ago, when I talked to people about it, I'd say, "Yeah it's not as easy but I don't need to charge away from home very often and, when I do, it's not too bad. Plus, some of the cars that are coming out in the future charge much faster."
Now, I can't really say that because it's not nearly as easy to charge away from home now and it can significantly extend your trip times.
I regularly (something close to annually) drive a two day, 1000 mile road trip. The last time I did it was where I encountered this. The way the trip works out as planned is a 10 hour day and an 8 hour day, including charging. More than an hour extra was added both ways in waiting times. That extra time was purely spent waiting for chargers.
I've also had time where I was unable to charge my car at home or just had a particularly busy day where I needed to charge locally. There are 3 fast chargers equidistant to me but all in different directions. I ended up waiting 45 minutes.
The problem is that you can't just go a few blocks away (if not across the street!) to the next station if they are full like with gas stations, you're pretty much stuck waiting where you've gambled on stopping.
I'm not going to recommend my dad deal with that.
Now, I can't really say that because it's not nearly as easy to charge away from home now and it can significantly extend your trip times.
I regularly (something close to annually) drive a two day, 1000 mile road trip. The last time I did it was where I encountered this. The way the trip works out as planned is a 10 hour day and an 8 hour day, including charging. More than an hour extra was added both ways in waiting times. That extra time was purely spent waiting for chargers.
I've also had time where I was unable to charge my car at home or just had a particularly busy day where I needed to charge locally. There are 3 fast chargers equidistant to me but all in different directions. I ended up waiting 45 minutes.
The problem is that you can't just go a few blocks away (if not across the street!) to the next station if they are full like with gas stations, you're pretty much stuck waiting where you've gambled on stopping.
I'm not going to recommend my dad deal with that.
On one level, sure, the problem is temporary and will sort itself out.
But it's a very practical problem right now for people with EVs and can be a significant factor in reducing the desirability of EVs. I'll say that charging was my #1 complaint when I leased a Chevy Bolt for a year. Chargers(in the bay area no less) were often broken, expensive, or required me to return to the charger(i.e. in the middle of dinner) to disconnect and move my vehicle.
But it's a very practical problem right now for people with EVs and can be a significant factor in reducing the desirability of EVs. I'll say that charging was my #1 complaint when I leased a Chevy Bolt for a year. Chargers(in the bay area no less) were often broken, expensive, or required me to return to the charger(i.e. in the middle of dinner) to disconnect and move my vehicle.
The value difference between horse and carriage and ICE car is much larger than the difference between ICE car and electric car. A lot of people aren't interested in being impacted by the chicken & egg problem because what they already have is convenient and performs the same function.
[deleted]
BYD is now the biggest manufacturer and seller of Electric Vehicles. Tesla was passed last year.
BYD also sells a lot of PHEV vehicle with a full ICE engine. What happen to those stats if you count only pure electric?
This article was talking only about the US market where they don’t exist.
More than 50%.
No, Tesla’s market share has gotten down to 50% and not all of their cars are 3 and Y.
You’re talking about new sales, those actually on the road are more like 70% of those two.
No shit, it's discussed in the article.
No, neither model is mentioned. It says that Teslas average dropped, but doesn’t specify individual models. I don’t even think the model 3 price has come down much but the Y has.
The article paint a picture of a broad industry trend, when I think it’s really mostly probably just one particular EV
The article paint a picture of a broad industry trend, when I think it’s really mostly probably just one particular EV
Well thanks to taxpapers electric vehicle companies are able to reduce the costs as stated in article. in general I wish tax payers got more opportunities to directly vote on where our money is going. A taxpayer should get a yearly report to indicate exactly where their money goes and which representatives voted for them.
At the same time you should thank taxpayers for artificially low oil prices as well.
How are gas prices subsidized? I'm asking in good faith because I truly don't know.
One way:
The US government's policy of "encouraging" countries to sell their crude in USD (in a "nice country you've got there, shame if something happened to it" way) keeps them in effective control of the price of oil. The last time someone tried to sell in Euros instead [0], the US DOD spent more than $1,000,000,000,000 [1] proving their willingness to back up that threat.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
The US government's policy of "encouraging" countries to sell their crude in USD (in a "nice country you've got there, shame if something happened to it" way) keeps them in effective control of the price of oil. The last time someone tried to sell in Euros instead [0], the US DOD spent more than $1,000,000,000,000 [1] proving their willingness to back up that threat.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
A large chunk of the DoD budget, for one thing.
Well tax payers get benefit from massive the supply chain running on gas and keeping price competitive for millions goods and services.
great spend of taxpayers money. I would like to give my thanks now to the politicians who decided to subsizide oil prices so my fellow Americans can reduce their gas bill.
Can’t tell if serious or not. Asking people who don’t drive to subsidize those who do seems counterproductive.
Thats like saying If you don’t have kids your property taxes shouldn’t go to the schools in the town. Almost everyone in America needs a car to survive and make a living. Have some realism
Oh the US is great at burdening everybody with car infrastructure costs, even if they don't drive. Just look at minimum parking requirements.
People who don't drive still buy things that were moved across the country (and world) using oil.
[deleted]
People elect goverment and officials, both at local and federal level to make informed decisions that weight in numerous factors. If people had more direct control over and line-item veto and vote, we may not make the best decision as a whole. At least for some contentious issues, you sometimes get to directly vote on state referendum.
And you get politicians getting bribed, er, lobbied, to legislate against the will of the people and/or the actually informed decision to make. It's not like a representative democracy is a clear win over a direct vote, or we'd have universal healthcare by now.
It's out there. Go read it.
[deleted]
Look up about the fact they're making irreparable chassis now, that's why. Buy now, pay later. Rather, your insurance will, and raise your rates. But hey, everyone wins.
A $14k drop is great, but what is the average price?
EDIT: $53,469, just shy of a $10k premium over ICE vehicles.
https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2023-08-09-Kelley-Blue-Book-Analys...