A few years ago, the industry narrative was that all-electric vehicles would reach financial parity with their combustion-driven counterparts in 2025. The assumption was that this would gradually occur by way of ramping up battery production and leveraging economies of scale. However, reality had a different take, as the world is now confronting record-setting prices across the board. Manufacturer and dealer hikes have resulted in the average invoice of EVs rising to $54,000 — roughly 10 grand higher than the typical transaction price of gasoline-powered vehicles, according to J.D. Power.
With economic pressures spiking the value of all automobiles, hardly anything is leaving the lot for less than it could have been had for in 2020. But the increases seen on all-electric models are actually outpacing the models we’ve been told they’re supposed to replace.
Manufacturers are citing inflation as the main culprit. But material shortages have also played a significant role, as it’s becoming increasingly difficult to source the raw materials for battery production. Manufacturers have spent the last few years trying to shore up their own supplies and/or develop strong relationships with the relevant suppliers. But it was already difficult to keep up with demand before pandemic-related shutdowns stymie supply chains. Now, the industry finds itself in a situation where nations are getting choosier about who they export to as demand goes up, supplies become further limited, and inflationary pressure mounts.
According to The Wall Street Journal, it has created a perfect storm for the industry and companies are doing their utmost to keep up. Unfortunately, keeping up means accelerating electrification plans that seemed somewhat risky to begin with and raising prices in a bid to outpace inflation.
From WSJ:
Last week, GM tacked on $6,250 to the price of GMC Hummer electric pickup-truck models, which now range from around $85,000 to $105,000, citing an increase in commodity and logistics costs. The waiting list for the recently released truck is about two years, a GM spokesman said.
Tesla this year has increased prices three times for a performance version of its top-selling Model Y SUV, adding a total of about 9 [percent] to the sticker price, which is now $69,900, according to Bernstein Research.
Overall, the average price paid for an electric vehicle in the U.S. in May was up 22 [percent] from a year earlier, at about $54,000, according to J.D. Power. By comparison, the average paid for an internal-combustion vehicle increased 14 [percent] in that period, to about $44,400.
The companies say they are trying to offset a recent price rise in raw materials that go into the batteries to power electric cars, by far the most expensive component of an EV. Prices for lithium, nickel and cobalt have roughly doubled since before the Covid-19 pandemic began, according to consulting firm AlixPartners LLP.
Last week, Ford finance chief John Lawler said unprecedented EV commodity expenses have wiped out the profit margin for Mach-E crossover. It raised prices in response and has also rejiggered its EV leasing strategy to prohibit buyouts in the United States, effectively allowing itself to recycle more batteries. But it’s really just an easy way for the brand to retain the most expensive component on electrified vehicles, upsell customers on their next lease, and keep anybody from getting away with a good deal on an off-lease product during high inflation. Toyota and other automakers have pitched similar concepts, often calling them “closed-loop battery ecosystems.” They don’t always function the same (despite the similar jargon). But the overarching goal remains similar — keep the hardware close however you can and always tell the public it’s for the good of the environment.
Insidious or not, the industry doesn’t have much of an option. If automakers are to continue selling vehicles in places like China or the European Union, they’ll have to start complying with brutally stringent emissions laws. You’re welcome to debate whether those regulations are the result of large, well-established companies lobbying to make life tougher for smaller automakers, actors wanting to exercise direct market control using ESG scores and faux environmentalism, or a necessary step to ensure the wellbeing of the planet. But that still won’t change the current realities of today’s market. The rules have been established, investments have been made, and the cars are now here, with precious little wiggle room being left for a struggling economy.
The industry’s preferred solution has been to get chummy with materials producers. While this runs the risk of automakers expanding into business sectors they previously ignored, leadership is claiming it’s the only way to ensure they’ll be able to continue manufacturing batteries at a pace necessary to eventually mainstream EVs.
Fortunately for automakers, demand is still relatively high across the board. Much of this is down to years of diminished output — something that’s at least partially their fault — and sustained hype for all-electric vehicles. The cars themselves have also gotten better over time, with mainstream automakers pulling away from teeny-weenie compact EVs for models that are more in line with consumer tastes. This again pokes holes in the argument that this is all about lessened emissions. But it has helped improve adoption rates, rationalized billions in development spending, and finally given Tesla some valid competition.
EV pricing has not gone up for all models, however. Older models can still be found for roughly the same price as they were before and GM even lopped several grand off the top of the Chevrolet Bolt, which is no longer eligible for the full $7,500 EV tax credit now that the company has reached its quota. Though it should also be noted that the vehicle previously underwent a high-profile safety recall pertaining to faulty battery cells.
Speaking of EV tax credits, most manufacturers (minus Tesla, ironically) have asked the United States to renew or expand on the previous scheme as more automakers reach capacity. The Biden administration has likewise been pushing for this but has run into problems by proposing that additional financial incentives could be linked to unionized labor. Surveys have also shown that the public, despite still showing an interest in all-electric vehicles, may have run out of goodwill for the incentive scheme after two years of elevated government spending. Though the industry feels this may be the best way to get EVs away from being viewed as luxury vehicles reserved or customers with extra zeros in their bank account and into the driveways of lower-income consumers. Expanding the national charging network, which has also gotten some financial assistance from Congress, is the other piece of that puzzle.
[Image: Guteksk7/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
How does the price increase compare with gasoline and hybrid cars?
“Overall, the average price paid for an electric vehicle in the U.S. in May was up 22 [percent] from a year earlier, at about $54,000, according to J.D. Power. By comparison, the average paid for an internal-combustion vehicle increased 14 [percent] in that period, to about $44,400.”
Hybrids, I don’t got. But two out of three ain’t bad, I’m told.
Meatloaf R.I.P.
In April, iSeeCars had EV prices up by 35 percent over the same time in 2021. Hybrids had gone up even more, averaging 40.5 percent higher. But this was based on list prices, rather than calculating actual transactions.
In the long run, the best way to get EVs “into the driveways of lower-income consumers” is to sell MORE of the expensive models. That allows manufacturers to amortize their R/D costs and bring out cheaper product.
Haha good one.
For the record, no, that is not how you do it. Unless you want EVs to take DECADES to progress.
That’s like saying GM needs to sell more $80000 Silverado’s so they can build more Sparks. Yeah, no. Not how that works.
All motor vehicles are going up in price, due to increases in raw materials, shortages all over the place, and historically high dealer markups.
Electric vehicles are going up quicker because so many consumers realize how much better they are, and demand outstrips supply even more.
Prices will go down as competition and supply increase, buyers get more discriminate, and the Chinese flood the market with below-cost models put together by Uyghur slaves.
>>Electric vehicles are going up quicker because so many consumers realize how much better they are<<
keep telling yourself that
fact is, EVs depend on gov promotion – because they are that much worse
Exactly. EVs are supposedly better because they have a very limited infrastructure to recharge them, have a shorter range than ICE vehicles, are considerably more expensive than ICE vehicles, etc.
“bUt ThEy ArE sUpEr FaSt!!!!!”
In nearly every possible metric, PHEVs are “much better” than the alternatives but certainly not EVs. EVs are a boondoggle
>>EVs are a boondoggle<<
see ethanol and "high" speed rail
“see ethanol and “high” speed rail”
American High Speed Rail. Other countries nail it. See Japan.
Japan is a tiny, densely populated country geographically smaller than California. It’s also deeply in debt.
China has been on a high speed rail building jag for the past ten years. As a result China State Railways itself has a debt of around $900 billion and is close to insolvency.
thornmark is disgruntled by GM making Honda and Acura EV SUV with Ultium technology.
Honda is paying GM because they don’t want to waste big money – GM knows how to do that
like Toyota, Honda is not big on EV’s
I keep reading about Honda’s declining quality so current GM products should fit right into their lineup
So what you are saying is that if we subsidize and encourage weathy people to do something the benefits will eventually “trickle down” to lower income folks? What a novel idea and I’m sure I’ve never heard it anywhere before. We should try it on a much larger scale. good to know you are on board @freedmike
@Art:
Technology is always trickle-down. That’s the nature of the beast.
Or they could just sell the expensive models and continue to make money while abandoning the lower margin products and letting their dealers steer them towards used units.
“ So what you are saying is that if we subsidize and encourage weathy people to do something the benefits will eventually “trickle down” to lower income folks?”
That’s not going to work with EVs.
Even Ford has stated ICE will be the money generating powerhouse so they can play around with EVs.
EVs are not sustainable on their own right now. They need many more (sensible) people buying ICE vehicles to survive.
“EVs are not sustainable on their own right now.”
Wow, you said something that makes sense.
That’s why they want to sell higher end EVs – they make more money, which they can plow into development of cheaper product. That’s how it works. The process is long run, not short run. And that’s OK.
Thanks for making my point.
“They need many more (sensible) people buying ICE vehicles to survive.”
What, you’re the final arbiter of what’s sensible and what isn’t? No, you aren’t. The only person any car purchase needs to make sense to is the person writing the check, not you.
“ Wow, you said something that makes sense.
That’s why they want to sell higher end EVs – they make more money, which they can plow into development of cheaper product.”
So you mock me for pointing out the idiocy of your initial point, and then just make your initial point again.
Read it slowly so you understand. EVs (that means all EVs) will not sustain future development. So, and you’ve stated twice now, selling “high end EVs” (which Ford sells zero and GM has that Hummer thing. That’s it as far as domestic production, Tesla aside) will do nothing to advance EVs.
For EVs to have any chance of survival, the automakers need to sell large amounts of ICE vehicles.
“For EVs to have any chance of survival, the automakers need to sell large amounts of ICE vehicles.”
I’m not arguing that point at all. All I’m saying is that manufacturers should be building higher-end EVs to begin with, and then using that revenue to improve the tech, make it more cost-effective, and then introduce it to a wider variety of models. Why do I say that? Because that’s the same model the auto industry has used on practically every new piece of automotive tech since the Model T. It works.
In the meantime, if you don’t want an EV, don’t buy one.
Why the haterade?
I doubt this will take a decades but it could take a decade. Once the technology is there EVs will become a more viable alternative for many especially if gas and diesel prices continue to rise and ICE vehicles become more complex. The move to more turbo 3s and 4s and reliability issues with them will be enough to move many to EVs including me. I will keep what I have for a long time but I will consider an EV in the future. As a rule when I replace a vehicle I have been getting more efficient vehicles because of the uncertainty of future supplies and price of fossil fuels which even if abundant it is more expensive to process and refine and oil companies have been cutting back in producing oil over the last decades. My last V-8 vehicle was over 20 years ago and my last V-6 was 9 years ago.
I agree – EV adoption will take time, and that’s OK.
I can wait and I don’t think that EVs will be the catastrophe or end of our civilization as some of the commenters on this site fear. We as a country and civilization have adjusted to major changes in the past and we are still here.
“ I don’t think that EVs will be the catastrophe or end of our civilization as some of the commenters on this site fear.”
Hate to inject some facts into your rant but for the record, nobody on this sit has said that. Nobody on this site has said anything close to that.
Ok back to your fictional fantasies!
Government mandate and regulations are the most significant motivation for manufacturers to adopt EV production. That is not OK.
That was said about Social Security too. And the Clean Air Act. I could go on and on about the times a government (not just ours) has stepped in to mandate a change for progress. I’m dead set against the generations-old scam called farm subsidies. I feel strongly that a state should receive the equivalent percentage amount of federal funds that their citizens put in. But wiser people with a clearer picture of the big picture make those decisions. I just benefit from many of them.
“Government mandate and regulations are the most significant motivation for manufacturers to adopt EV production.”
That’s certainly a big piece of it, but then again, there is definitely demand for EVs in the luxury market. There’s a reason Tesla is trading for over $600 a share.
“ The waiting list for the recently released truck is about two years,”
That statement, I believe is THE main reason for high EV prices.
Yes, the other reasons are also valid.
Great point. If they have endless wait lists for folks throwing money at them for a vehicle that won’t exist for 2 years they have ZERO motivation to do anything to bring down the price. Why would they when folks are placing deposits regardless of the price?
+1 turns out people really want EVs are willing to pay big money for them. Given the current gas prices demand has increase even more. Given the chip shortage and supply chain issues inventory is even lower. All of this is a recipe for EVs costing more.
Current gas prices are a major part of it. I remember the last gas price spike in 2008, when Jalopnik (I think) pointed out that someone was selling a Geo Metro for like $20k. People make irrational long-term buying decisions based on short-term market swings.
That said, I was lucky enough to order my EV a year ago, and picked it up in February just as gas prices were beginning to take off, and driving it to work saves me $10 _a day_ compared to my ICE car. That makes up for quite a difference in the monthly payment.
Yes they are more expensive initially. Having just taken a trip to Belton South Carolina from North Jersey in my RWD model 3. I was amazed at how easy the trip was and how cheap the cost to charge was compared to my wife’s gas car. I will never go back to a gas car. There are plenty of chargers available so I don’t know why all these people who don’t own one have all these opinions about something they do not know about. Don’t listen to people online babbling. Go test drive one for yourself and make your own educated decision.
Will Branden DEMAND that electric car manufacturers bring down price of electric vehicles, produce more, and stop profiteering?
You know, like he demanded oil refiners and produces stop taking advantage of American families and stop profiteering in times of “war” and use their existing capacities?
That’s a good point. Ford recently raised the price of a fake Mustang by $8k in the UK earlier this year. I’m sure we will see or have seen the same types of “profiteering” (as it’s called) on our models too.
https://insideevs.com/news/580393/mach-e-price-rise/
GM is announcing a $30K Equinox EV in thr fall.
And? When do you think that price was decided on? They have been saying that for over a year now.
Do you know if it’s profitable at $30k? Is it going to be like the fake Lightning where one very specific model is priced low while the rest of the models are $15k+ more?
“EVs Are Becoming More Expensive, Not Less”
So what?
No mfr can keep up with demand, whether EV or ICE.
And the lower-income consumer thing is a strawman – lower-income consumers aren’t buying new cars of any kind, and nobody is forcing anyone to buy an EV.
Actually, EVs are getting less expensive per mile of range compared to pre-pandemic times, but this figure gets lost in the wacky conditions we have today.
The cost of EVs is a solvable problem if we care to look at the causes – a dysfunctional supply chain, a global adversary with a nonsensical zero covid policy that also controls main shipping ports and raw materials, a corrupt auto mfg/retailing ecosystem, and incompetent political leaders.
Take your pick.
This is not surprising. With people really not wanting EVs, and EVs costing a substantial amount more to produce, prices must rise.
It costs Ford $25,000 MORE to build a fake Mustang SUV than it does a comparable Edge. Ford isn’t that virtuous that they are going to eat that cost to supposedly “save the planet”.
The EV boondoggle continues…
“ With people really not wanting EVs”
Hence the two year waiting list.
And? There could be other reasons why the waiting list is that long.
If 10 people want something I make, but I only make two a year, I have a 5 year waiting list.
Manufacturers are not encouraged to make EVs as they barely break even or take a loss on them (unless you can hide the losses within the program like the F150).
EVs represent a very small percentage of the market.
I have been on a waiting list for months for an everdrive for a Sega Genesis. Is it that there is crazy demend for a device that lets you load roms from any source, or is it that the dude making them lives in Ukraine?
Interesting theory. So your understanding of how the market works is that, when demand for a product is low, the price for that product will rise?
I see context is lost on you.
Yes clearly the only influencing factor is demand. It’s definitely not a combination of many factors.
Europeans, Chinese and Japanese do not really need cars because they have excellent public transportation system. So price of EV is irrelevant outside of USA.
And BTW Biden runs on Python. I saw it myself on TV – he was taking cues from the piece of paper with Python script.
Prediction (28% confidence):
I) Gasoline prices in the U.S. are headed for CRA-ZY.
II) EV’s will become even more of a hot commodity. Prices will surge.
III) Diesel prices are headed for CRA-ZY-PLUS (and no help in the near term from EV’s for larger diesel vehicles).
36% confidence – a hurricane will disrupt gas production in LA or TX this year pushing prices even higher.
93% confidence: At least once in the next 14 months, at least two Americans will get into an insane bidding war over one in-stock EV.
The price of materials needed for an EV are only going up. Absent a scientific breakthrough, EV pricing is not going down anytime soon – especially if governments worldwide insist on mandating sales levels that economics does not support.
>>The price of materials needed for an EV are only going up. Absent a scientific breakthrough, EV pricing is not going down anytime soon – especially if governments worldwide insist on mandating sales levels that economics does not support.<<
exactly
best companies are not betting on an EV future, because multiplying cost of batteries/lack of minerals and lack of electricity to power them – it's almost as the EV push has been made w/o any thinking at all
btw, homes in the NE are heated w/ the equivalent of diesel, and if the price of diesel fuel does not come down, brandon's party will pay the price hugely
Well said, Thornmark.
Chevy dropped the price of the Bolt $6,000 for the 2023 model year and they’re giving that much money in incentives on remaining 2022s.
For anyone waiting for a proper EV to match the price of something like a mid level Honda Civic- here you go. It’s finally happened.
Only problem is; you’d have to drive a Chevy Bolt.
Oh, and don’t ask WHY they dropped the price. Just buy one and embrace the future.
maybe because of the fires – doesn’t GM tell Bolters to park their Bolts outside, lest they lose their homes to the incendiary Bolts
@thornmark: The problem with the Bolts was resolved, so they’re okay to park inside. However, if you have an ICE Ford Expedition or Navigator or Hyundai Kia, you need to park outside:
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/ford-advising-expedition-navigator-owners-park-outside-fire/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hyundai-kia-owners-park-vehicles-can-catch-fire-makers-warn-rcna15445
Yes the ICE vehicles that start on fire due to electric components…..not anything to do with the fact it’s internal combustion.
Try again
“electric components…..not anything to do with the fact it’s internal combustion”
Something like 96% of internal combustion engines in the U.S. run on gasoline.
Gasoline-powered vehicles generally need three (some say four) things to run:
– Compression if we’re counting that
– Fuel (hope we can afford it)
– Air (cleaner is better – is there any left?)
– Spark
Sparks are electric. Generating sparks to run a gasoline engine requires electric/electronic/electromechanical components.
Ergo, ‘electric components’ are inherent to gasoline engines.
(Are you ever wrong? I say yes.)
We paid $69,880 CAD in April 2021 for my wife’s Model Y long range. If one were to order it now the price is $86,990 CAD plus you will have to wait a year to get it. 25% increase. That’s crazy.
I suspect that once Austin and Berlin are up to speed and cheaper LFP batteries start taking the pressure off of NCA battery prices, Tesla will start dropping the prices. CATLs Qilin battery tech should put some pressure on them as well once that starts rolling out in vehicles.
Maybe but I think we are at least a couple of years off from cheaper batteries and for production to get anywhere near normal. Experts were predicting 2023 and then 2024 but at with global shortages no one really knows. Even if you are not buying a vehicle the shock at the gas pump and the grocery store. Grocery stores still are not anywhere near being fully stocked.
@JeffS: Relatively cheap LFP batteries are here now and in production. The problem is that the manufacturers are pocketing the extra profits. A number of LFP patents are due to expire this year, so that should lower LFP prices further.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/26/why-lfp-batteries-are-poised-to-bring-down-entry-level-ev-prices/
Longer term, NA+ batteries, which are going into production for power storage use now, should be developed to a point they will start showing up in vehicles the latter part of the decade. Short term, NA+ will take some pressure off of the lithium battery market by taking over the power storage market.
@mcs–You could be correct but with all the shortages and bottlenecks in supplies and transportation I am not that optimistic that things will get back to anywhere normal in the near future. It takes a while for things to get back to normal. I hope you are right because if anything is going to help with the sales of EVs there needs to be more reliable and less expensive batteries. Don’t misunderstand me I am not anti EV I am just waiting on the sidelines to see what further developments in batteries and infrastructure transpire and waiting for more affordable EVs. I doubt that I am in alone.
If you want to know the price change on BV’s (battery vehicles) look at Tesla.
Everyone else is just faking it so far.
Rivian, too. They quickly learned how costly it is to build a decent EV.
Which is why I say: if we want more EVs, we need to accept the fact that they’re going to be sold to folks with money first…and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Eventually, the tech will come down in price, but for now, it needs to be somewhat expensive so the companies that make the stuff can make a buck on it.
“ Which is why I say: if we want more EVs, we need to accept the fact that they’re going to be sold to folks with money first…and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Except that’s insane and not how it works. EVs do not generate the profits necessary to continue their development. ICE does.
Yes, that is how it works.
Take any almost any new automotive technology, and it typically first appeared on the more expensive models first, and then filtered its’ way down to cheaper cars. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking about power steering, V-8 engines, ABS, fuel injection, air conditioning, turbochargers, stereo systems, power windows, navigation systems…you name it, it didn’t appear in the base products first.
That’s why automakers want to sell more expensive EVs first – they spent tons of money on the new tech and they want to recoup their investment. That’s called “capitalism.”
So, you can call me as many names as you want, and I could care less.
“and I could care less.”
Word Crimes.
“ Yes, that is how it works.”
No. It’s absolutely not. The CEO of Ford has said as much.
ICE will find EV development. Not EVs.
Most of what you say is completely wrong but this one takes the cake. And I didn’t call you any names above.
“No. It’s absolutely not. The CEO of Ford has said as much.”
Well, of course their conventionally powered stuff will help fund EVs. But selling more expensive EVs ALSO funds EVs. Selling cheaper EVs would clearly impact profitability. And, yes, when automakers introduce new tech – and EVs would definitely qualify as new tech – it gets introduced at the upper end of the range, not the low end. The industry has been doing that since there has been an industry.
That was my point. It was far from insane, which is what you called me…not that I care what you think of me.
No. Just accept you are completely wrong. Right now ford loses money on every fake mustang that is sold.
What development is that funding?
“Right now ford loses money on every fake mustang that is sold.”
Assuming that’s true, if it were cheaper, they’d be losing even more. Thus, the decision to chase a more monied audience and sell it for a higher price.
“ Assuming that’s true, if it were cheaper, they’d be losing even more.”
Wow. What a mind we have here folks. That is such a deep thought. You make the people of Mensa look like complete, drooling idiots.
And what do you mean “assuming it’s true”? Of course it’s true, everything I say is true. It came right from the CFO of Ford himself:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-e-profit-170117652.html
“@FreedMike–That has been true of most technologies including the first cars, microwaves, calculators, personal computers, cell phones, air conditioning, VHS then DVDs, CDs, streaming, and many other things that have made our lives easier and more comfortable.”
The problem with this incredibly flaws analogy is that when the first automobiles came out, they were not trying to take over for existing automobiles. When the very first microwaves came out, there was not already microwaves on the market. Same holds true for everything else you listed.
You are trying to paint the EV as a “first”. They’re not. Thus, they are competing for a spot in a field of already extremely valuable and useful products that do the exact same thing.
I’ll say it again for those that can’t seem to grasp this concept. High end EVs are not going to provide the profitability to fund current and future EV improvements. EVs, with their near non existent profits margins and very low sales are not able to do that. It takes the sale of ICE powered vehicles to fund ANY EV development. If you want EVs to improve you had better encourage the sale of ICE vehicles.
This is why those stupid, grandstanding, virtuous, pieces of sub human excrement called politicians are amazingly short sighted when they propose and enact legislation to outlaw the sale of ICE vehicles in the next 3-13 years.
“ That was my point. It was far from insane, which is what you called me…not that I care what you think of me.”
Read, comprehend.
You failed to do the second part. I never called you insane.
@FreedMike–That has been true of most technologies including the first cars, microwaves, calculators, personal computers, cell phones, air conditioning, VHS then DVDs, CDs, streaming, and many other things that have made our lives easier and more comfortable.
Yeah but when all of those technologies hit the street they weren’t accompanied by the technology they were replacing becoming prohibitively expensive.
I couldn’t afford a discman when they first came out, but nobody jacked the price of cassettes up to where I couldn’t afford Van Halen’s newest offering to jam to in my walkman.
Or is your intent for the wealthy to buy EVs and the poors to buy a bus pass? I mean that sounds like something an a-hole like me would say but you guys are typically more compassionate than me, or so you claim.
@Art:
Supply issues and inflation contributed, but consumers were clearly the ones who “jacked prices up” on cars. How? They stopped buying cheaper sedans and compacts, and started buying trucks and CUVs. Trucks and CUVs cost more.
Here are your top 10 sellers for 2021 and 2012:
2021
1) Ford F150
2) Chevy Silverado
3) Dodge Ram
4) Toyota RAV4
5) Honda CR-V
6) Toyota Camry
7) Honda Civic
8) Toyota Highlander
9) GMC Sierra
10) Toyota Tacoma
2012:
1) Ford F1509
2) Toyota Camry
3) Honda Accord
4) Honda Civic
5) Chevy Silverado
6) Nissan Altima
7) Toyota Corolla
8) Honda CR-V
9) Ford Escape
10) Ford Focus
In 2012, five of the best selling vehicles were sedans or compacts; that number dropped to two in 2021. The top three sellers in 2021 were all trucks; in fact, of the top ten last year, five were trucks, compared to two in 2012.
No one made consumers do this. We did it on our own.
Then what makes you think they are going to take these hypothetical EV profits and spend them developing vehicles that consumers have spent 10 years saying they don’t wannt? They are going to take those profits and make the screens bigger in the vehicles making them those profits…not develop cars that require a pile of cash on the hood or a bulk order from a rental agency to move.
TFL did another test with the fake lightning against a 6.2L Sierra. The extended range fake lightning, with a 6,000 pound trailer made it 87 miles.
The Sierra made the trip and used 17 gallons of fuel. When cost was factored in, the fake lightning saved about $20 bucks.
What a boondoggle.
Well, I guess that people who like towing shouldn’t buy an EV, then. Could this be the reason why automakers are going to keep on making conventionally powered trucks?
actually, there is a solution to the trailering/towing issue. Airstream and their parent are testing powered trailers with their own batteries and motors that could help the range of both ICE and EV tow vehicles. A side benefit is that the trailer can be moved and positioned without even being connected to the tow vehicle using a remote control to get it into a tight camping spot.
https://www.airstream.com/air-lab/concepts/estream/
Trailering with an EV sounds like it’s “doable” in the same way that it was “doable” to surf the Internet on a flip phone in 2002.
There are just some applications that EVs are poorly suited for right now, and trailering is one of them. And that’s OK. Not every vehicle has to meet every possible buyer’s needs, which is the “failure” that folks like EB like to use to justify their anti-EV haterade. By that logic, they should be trashing trucks for being awful at performance driving, or subcompacts for not being as good as a midsize sedan at taking a family of five on a thousand-mile roadtrip. Nothing but hardcore fail in both of those cases. But do you see them trashing trucks or subcompacts? Curiously enough, that’s not happening.
EVs just have to meet the needs of the people who want them. As the tech evolves, it’ll get better and cheaper, and thus better suited to a greater slice of buyers.
“ Not every vehicle has to meet every possible buyer’s needs, which is the “failure” that folks like EB like to use to justify their anti-EV haterade. By that logic, they should be trashing trucks for being awful at performance driving, or subcompacts for not being as good as a midsize sedan at taking a family of five on a thousand-mile roadtrip. ”
Thank you for furthering the fact you are unable to comprehend a basic argument.
Why would anyone trash a truck for being poor at performance driving when that’s not why they are designed?
The subcompact argument doesn’t work either as nobody is pushing subcompacts as a replacement for all sedans.
But the only argument we hear from a multitude of sources are that EVs are ready to replace ICE vehicles in every segment.
I merely provide counter arguments to that using facts and data that’s readily available. You try and paint me as having anti EV hatred. Couldn’t be more true. But I’m not a sheep that thinks current EVs are a viable replacement to todays ICE vehicles.
“Why would anyone trash a truck for being poor at performance driving when that’s not why they are designed?”
Exactly, and no one said the F150 Lightning is being aimed at people who are big into towing. The Lightning is aimed at people who buy trucks as commuter/family vehicles and need a bed to put stuff in occasionally…and that’s true of most people who buy F150s. If you are into towing, then Ford will sell you something else.
I think you’re trashing the Lightning because it wouldn’t work for you. Fair enough, I suppose, but then again, far as I’m concerned, NO truck works for me, so I won’t buy one. Does that mean I’m out there trashing trucks? I suppose I’d love it if they were smaller, and easier to see around for those of us in cars, but in the end, all the people driving them didn’t spend my money, so it’s their business what they drive.
It’s really that simple.
EB, keep railing on that strawman. I’m sure it’s very satisfying.
No one is saying EVs have to fill every mission. But they can fill a lot today; I think they could replace around 40% of today’s cars with zero or very little pain. And that percentage will go way up as the charging infrastructure builds out.
If you are towing trailers 1000 miles at a time, an EV probably won’t work for you, and that’s fine.
“ Airstream and their parent are testing powered trailers with their own batteries and motors that could help the range of both ICE and EV tow vehicles.”
Rube Goldberg would be proud…
Good lord, have you experienced the quality of a travel trailer (In fairness, Airstrams are high quality, but you think a Lightning is expensive?!?!
With respect to the mainstream offerings I’ll pass on them making them more complex.
Plus you are going to make them heavier which in turn will require more truck to tow them…requiring more batteries…requiring more truck to tow them.
@FreedMike–Some people that comment have a very limited vocabulary and use words like “fake” and “liberal” generously because those are the words they learned on Fox News and from the Orange One. They are also resistant to change and believe any change is catastrophic like Chicken Little the Sky is Falling. I choose to not spend every moment worrying about change I would much rather survive and adapt. Who knows things could get better and EVs could be better than expected.
@EB:
Were those test trucks running up a very long mountain? 87 miles for the Ford and 5 mpg for the GM are both terrible. I’d expect double those numbers.
Anyway, if I did that test at home the savings would be about $80 – for just that one trip – so I’m not sure how you do your math.
Either way, long-distance towing (up to 3500 lbs) is why my recent car purchase wasn’t an EV. Frequent stops on a long trip just aren’t tenable.
From Insideevs:
“The F-150 Lightning was able to travel about 90 miles before needing a charge, but they didn’t run it until it was completely dead. Efficiency came in at 0.7mi/kWh. Meanwhile, the GMC Sierra covered nearly 160 miles, and the dash display showed 8.9 mpg. It cost Tommy less than $30 to charge the Lightning, though it took a good amount of time. The gas truck used about $100 in fuel, but you can fill it up almost instantly.”
Now I understand – the Sierra went much farther. But they claim over $70 in savings for the trip.
Still terrible range for the Ford, no question about that.
What they left out is that he only charged it to 75% to from 9%. So 66% for $30. Then he had to make the return trip. That’s another $30. Now add the extra 25% to get it back to 100%. The savings was minimal.
As for elevation it was about 1,000 feet over the 87 miles (initial trip).
EVs is the biggest bag of white lies sold by politicians that are getting rich off of it while the consumer pays for it
What lie did a politician sell me when I bought my EV6? So far I’ve driven it 2500 miles and paid about $80 for the electricity it’s sucked up while parked in my garage overnight. Seems like a pretty good deal.
Astigmatism, Thanks for providing that data point. Always good to hear from real people (hat tip GM) and what they’re seeing.
My car gets about 22 mpg on average city/highway driving. For the 2500 miles you drove, I would have purchased 108 gallons of gas at $6.45/gallon. About $700.
Figure that 2500 miles is roughly 2 months of driving, and you’re paying $40/month while I’m paying $350.
One further data point for this discussion. We bought a Bolt and a Highlander Hybrid in the same week in April 2019. Since then, we’ve racked up the following numbers:
BOLT
15,100 miles (nearly all local/city)
5,400 kWh
Average cost per kWh (est): ~$0.12
Total fueling cost (est): ~$648
Fuel cost per mile (est): ~$0.043
HIGHLANDER
21,300 miles (majority long trips, with some local/city use mixed in)
Average mpg over course of ownership: 25.2 mpg
Fuel consumption: ~845 gal.
Average cost per gallon (est): $3.90
Total fuel cost (est): ~$3,295
Fuel cost per mile (est): ~$0.155
Add in ease of city parking and it’s no wonder the Bolt gets driven everyday, while the Highlander only gets driven when we need either a second car, the third row, or long range. It frequently sits two weeks without moving.
What other vehicles do you own and how often do you drive them?
Other vehicle in the house is an Alfa Romeo Giulia. Generally I drive it when my wife has the EV6, or occasionally for weekend trips if I haven’t taken it out in a few weeks (I don’t want to leave an ICE car sitting without having been driven for more than two weeks in a row), though we did use it for a couple of longer drives to the mountains back when there was still snow on the ground. Since took the EV6 home in March, have put ~1,000 miles on the Alfa, and filled up the tank three times.
Interesting. I actually kind of like the EV6 (and Ioniq) and could see them working as a primary vehicle if someone had something reliable for longer trips. Seems like it slots into your lifestyle rather well and I hope that’s something everyone remembers. No car choice is ever incorrect, provided it works for reasons the person that bought it for and it doesn’t bankrupt anybody.
Would never pretend otherwise. But I think my situation – suburban family with two cars and a traffic-heavy commute – describes an awful lot of people in this country, for whom an EV makes a ton of sense when paired with a more conventional vehicle. When I trade in the Alfa, it will almost certainly _not_ be for an EV, but it may well be for a PHEV.
I thought I would be replacing our hybrid with a BEV, but after a bit more reflection I think the charging infrastructure just isn’t there for non-Teslas for our mostly road trip use. Since I no longer have any interest in buying a Tesla, either new or used, the replacement will probably be a PHEV. Still hoping that the long-trip car after that will be a BEV, though.
“EVs is the biggest bag of white lies sold by politicians that are getting rich off of it”
Please explain that mechanism.
“ EVs is the biggest bag of white lies sold by politicians that are getting rich off of it while the consumer pays for it”
Yep. There’s no reasonable reason to push these awful vehicles. There are far better options but yet, the EV is the one they choose. Makes you wonder what’s really going on
It’s all part of the same evil conspiracy that leads some people to buy Fords when you think they shouldn’t.
That last Covid-19 booster caused millions of unsuspecting victims to buy Fords and EVs creating zombies who will take over the World and spread liberalism everywhere. I still would like to know how they got those microchips into the vaccines they must be so small that they cannot be detected by the naked eye.
Libs thought they’d just impose sanctions on Russia and since they don’t buy gas from Russia, prices for gas would go up and would signal a boom for the purchase of electric cars. But they forgot that they’ve been busy writing checks for people to stay home because of COVID and supply couldn’t keep up with demand when Biden declared that he had defeated COVID and issued a mandate for everyone to go out and spend all their money at once.
We’re still about two years away from the supply chain normalizing; computer part prices have just now reached something resembling normalcy so the chokehold is only now starting to release after two years of buildup. And just in time for Biden to be voted out of office after a single term.
This is what happens when you keep mandating higher and higher fuel economy for passenger cars but keep exempting three-row SUVs and 4×4 trucks. When you can’t make small cars affordable, you can’t make small cars.
The reason copper cables, instead of silver ones, are generally used to transmit electricity electric cabling, is because the materials going ito making the former are much more readily available.
If some “genius”, “visionary” or whatever the currently fashionable synonym for gullible idiot happens to be; decided that silver was “better for Pluto”, hence should be promoted with money stolen from other, more productive, people; then yes, you may see an initial uptake, as the lowest hanging currently unused silver fruit is picked under heavy subsidy. But then, prices go up. And back to copper we go.
someone once thought alumininum would work well
I remember the aluminum wiring in my parent’s and townhouse in the mid 60s thru the 70s builders used aluminum wiring because of the rising price of copper. Sometimes a spark would come out of the outlet even when it was not being used. It was claimed that the reason for issues with aluminum wires was that the same outlets could not be used for aluminum wiring that were used for copper wiring.
There will never be any shortage of Elons hyping, and possible even believing in, the latest iteration of perpetuum mobile.
The difference being, only in eras when central banks and kangaroo courts have resulted in so thoroughly redistributing ALL wealth, hence all power and influence, to only the dumbest of the very dumb; do such silly hacks get to squander the kind of massive amounts of resources stolen from less singularly stupid people, that they do today.
Not looking to start a fight and I understand the situation where households have more than one car, but…
“Would never pretend otherwise. But I think my situation – suburban family with two cars and a traffic-heavy commute – describes an awful lot of people in this country, for whom an EV makes a ton of sense when paired with a more conventional vehicle. When I trade in the Alfa, it will almost certainly _not_ be for an EV, but it may well be for a PHEV.”
The idea that an EV makes a ton of sense when you have another gas powered car to use when its needed/is more convenient, is an enormous statement against EVs.
It’s a hybrid, but with 8 wheels. :-)
Not anymore than a saying I’m okay buying a 911 because my wife drives an SUV, but wouldn’t feel comfortable in a two-911 household, is an enormous statement against 911s. Different vehicles have different uses, and in 98% of situations, our EV works better than our ICE vehicle, but it’s handy having the ICE vehicle for the other 2%.
Governments aren’t telling us we’ll only be able to buy 911s in the near future.
That would be sick though.
“only be able to buy 911s in the near future”
This is no good – if I get the long wheelbase ‘El Camino’ 911 version, won’t the engine take up part of the bed?
Matt Posky has written multiple articles about how there isn’t demand for EVs in the United States and that Tesla only gets lots of sales because it’s a cult. Now he’s stating that there actually is too much demand for EVs (which has been obvious to anyone over the past two years seeing the insane waitlists to buy any desirable EV). So, which one is it?
Also I have a question about this statement: “This again pokes holes in the argument that this is all about lessened emissions.” Can you please explain this?