> No, the real problem is that the true market-clearing price for most of these vehicles was $7500-$10000 less than MSRP (which was set knowing the regulatory environment), combined with the false calculation of depreciation based on MSRP instead of market price.

This seems like it. If you paid $29,000 for something with a $36,500 MSRP because of a $7500 credit and a few years later it's worth $22,000, the amount of depreciation you're calculating by starting from MSRP and the amount that the buyer actually experienced are off by more than a factor of two.

Meanwhile the credits caused more new sales than there would have been otherwise, which means more cars of that model available in the used market, and supply and demand is still a thing.

It's not evidence that people don't want them, it's evidence that if you subsidize something the price comes down.

Oh, you're in for a surprise. An ID.7, the updated Model 3, Ford Explorer/Capri, plus all the ones you don't have in the US - Nio, Zeekr, BYD, Renault, Skoda, Volvo, Cupra - are significantly better than the EVs of five years ago.

Presumably you’re in the US, given the models you list. Don’t look there, because the best EVs are not available in the U.S. because of trade barriers. Look at what BYD and Toyota are doing in China.

Electric vehicles are improving at the rate that batteries are improving. That is faster than you may think.

If you look just at Teslas, they go further and charge faster on smaller batteries (higher energy densities). These batteries cost less and will last far longer. And Tesla uses an older battery tech than Chinese companies use so, in fact, batteries have improved far more. And with sodium ion, there is about to be a massive improvement over the next few years.

>Are they really, though?

Yes, if you look beyond progress within a specific model line. For instance, there is a marked difference between the range and towing capacity of a 2023 Chevrolet Silverado EV and the Ford Lightning. The Kia EV9 offered a substantial price advantage over existing 3-row EVs when it was introduced in 2023. I think you're right that actual pricing vs MSRP is probably the biggest factor, but real and rapid improvement in the products also contributes. I know I've put off buying an EV van because I know that better options will be coming within the next 18 months.

> the now-discontinued Bolt (which was the cheapest road-tripable EV)

FYI the Bolt is back, at least for a limited run. [1]

1: https://news.gm.com/home.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2025/o...

I can’t speak for the rest, but I believe in 2023 Tesla’s all moved from HW3 to HW4.

I went from a 2020 Model 3 to a 2025 and the self driving experience is dramatically better. I’m one of those “I will never use FSD” people and I honestly love driving…but it’s so good I find myself using it constantly and just being awestruck.

tesla's cars literally just got remodeled what on earth do you mean bz4? toyota? yes they made their terrible impractical car actually practical in its latest form.

the teslas are newish, with new parts and better sound suppression. they also improve marginally in efficiency every year. so the 2023 will have slightly better mechanicals than the 2021 etc.

not too different ... they are very different. much improved. go read a review comparing them.

how much different is today's durango from last year's or here lemme remind you durango hasn't been updated in 15 (count them!) FIFTEEN years. other zombie gas models are out there too.

Personally I chose a new over a used Model Y this year because the Juniper release includes a new front bumper camera which could prove crucial in certain unlikely scenarios, and improve overall self-driving. It’s important enough that there are rumors they’ll offer the option of retrofitting it onto earlier versions: https://evannex.com/blogs/news/how-to-identify-your-model-y-...

Also HW4 likely unlocks significant self-driving performance that the earlier hardware stack cannot accommodate, and will support features that are yet to be released for a longer period of time.

Which is all to say: looks to me that the progress is significant.

I'm looking at getting a used F-150 lightning, with the caveat that towing anything absolutely decimates your range.

The new redesign coming out next year addresses this with a huge battery size increase.

Does real progress matter? What about the perception of progress?

Cars don’t need to be better, customers only need to think so.

Just look at the smartphone market.

I'm sure for newer EV models makers cut down on production costs but they may also cut down on quality as well.

> Runs entirely on plant based biofuels

You forgot, "and pollutes like crazy."

The environmental calculus of driving a new car, versus driving a 40 year old diesel engine is challenging, I admit. Moreso if you are distilling your own fuel. I would bet that a gross polluter (as California calls them) from 40 years ago are probably a net loss compared to a 20 year old ICE today.

What’s the cost of biofuel, and what economy does the car get? And have you looked at how it’s crash test ratings actually stand up against a modern vehicle?

You also get a steering column pumped through your skull in an accident, but that's another discussion I suppose.

>vehicle is safe

Sure if you ignore all the safety improvements made to driving over the last 40 years...

My favorite aspect of biofuels is that allows for the machine-energy economy to compete with the human-energy economy. It allows for first world folks to use their buying power to compete with food in the 2nd and 3rd world.

Whats the model may i ask?

There is a lot of fear around battery degradation. People don not like EVs that have come off warranty.

So, while the batteries may last 800,000 km, people start to discount the replacement cost before they even hit 200,000 km.

Consumers do not have even experience yet to value used EVs properly. It is a great time to be a used EV buyer.

ICE and EV are two market segments. They are partially substitutable, but for many ICE customers an EV is a non-starter because of charging infrastructure, which means that if one of those customers needs to replace their ICE vehicle, they need to replace it with another ICE vehicle, and cannot take advantage of price drops in new EVs. (I ran into this personally; I wanted to get an EV, but my garage does not have a charger, none of the circuits near it could support a charger, and so I need to rewire my house and get a main panel upgrade to do more than L1 charging.)

Likewise US and rest-of-world are different markets because of trade barriers.

Within the EV market segment, the resale value may be plummeting because new car prices are declining because of improved technology and higher volume. Someone who is replacing their EV or looking for a new one already has the required charging infrastructure, otherwise they wouldn't be looking. But this price drop affects only other EV buyers, because ICE buyers cannot take advantage of it.

This insulation lasts only as long as the price differential between them remains less than the capital costs of getting a L2 charger and associated electrical upgrades.

Isn't that a different way of saying the same thing?

There's no denying that ICE Engines have been around for a long time, relative to EVs. A mature technology means that any low-hanging fruit for performance improvements was found a long time ago. Remaining gains require the expensive R&D for marginal improvements that you mention.

It's not that they're "good enough" - any consumer who can do the sums would prefer a 20% better price/performance, always. It's just that such improvements are not there to be had in ICE vehicles. There is no rush to improve them, as you said.

And therefor the performance of a new ICE vehicle, 5 year old vehicle or 10 year old vehicle is well-understood, predictable. Both in terms of what the tech was when it was built, and how it has aged. EVs are less so in both of these dimensions. e.g. I would have reasonable confidence in the durability of an EV battery for a 2025 model, but much less so for a 2015 model. They're just not the same.

Meanwhile, I don't really care much about resale value because when I buy a car I typically intend to drive it until it dies.

In this sense, EVs depreciating faster than ICEVs is exciting, since if my current Tacoma prematurely gives up the ghost (or I buy a second car) I can add “snag an EV for cheap” to my list of available options.

I feel like this shows a change in mindset these past couple decades.

More and more people buy things for the purpose of reselling them. Houses are now more investments than places to actually live in. Rubbing alcohol was bought up during Covid so people could resell. Cryptocurrency is bought with the goal of selling for double a few months later and nobody really believes in the "currency" aspect of it. Pokémon cards, originally made for kids and to play in a card game, are now all scooped up by cart load by adults so they can resell them on eBay, and those buyers hope to resell later. The 2020s has people trying to sell used cars for equal or more than their new value. Strange times.

If you don't resale you don't lose anything.

Just drive it till it's no longer operational or gift it away to a family member at some point and you get full value of what you paid for without a care in the world about second hand market.

A lot of people clearly are willing to spend lots of money for irrational reasons in cars. I

I have a 5 year old Model S and it's still like new. And it has a wheel instead of a yolk.

The problems with used cars are usually:

1. The previous owner abused the car

2. There is known damage which is being kept hidden from you

Battery technology in general.

And, Tesla is an outlier here. Other EVs are progressing MUCH faster.

I can't tell you about Tesla, but BMW for example did shoot themselves right in the foot by announcing literally at the launch of the iX that they are going to bring a new model with updated 800V architecture within couple years. So........why would you buy that first one, knowing that a much improved model is literally right around the corner. Consequently prices of the iX cratered, and you could have it on a lease for the same cost as a VW golf, despite being (at least in theory) 3x more expensive. The first gen cars are now so laughably cheap it's actually stupid to not buy one because they are still perfectly good very capable vehicles - but yeah, why would it keep value if it was immediately replaced by a much better model. With EVs we're in the GPU area where each model immediately displaces the last generation and within few years your top of the line flagship card is worth close to nothing.

The GPU, sensors, trim, motors, and batteries have improved in those 5 years. I have a 2020 X and I am considering when to update. While the S and X haven’t gotten a significant improvement like the 3 and Y have they are still substantially better than before. Despite the memes I’ve consistently tried the other options, and have tried the BYD, Zyker, MG, etc available in Asia, and the Tesla are still far and away the best cars especially if you consider them in combination with the supercharger network. I think they have slowed their pace of improvement surely through a lot of Musks self inflicted fault, but the competition hasn’t yet surpassed them.

For those boosting BYD, etc, the finish is shiny but low quality, and is rife with safety red flags - an example being by in large you can watch YouTube and movies and sturr on the central screen while driving. (It’s scary in Asia with grab drivers watching videos while weaving in and out of traffic) - but the price is good.

They are definitely degrading.

Complex driver aid/“safety” systems, outrageously complicated “infotainment” systems that are also used to interact with system functions, sealed/un-serviceable transmissions, exhaust gas filtration and recirculating systems, these are all additional points of failure that represent a degradation on modern ICE cars.

These cars won’t be around 20 years after manufacture in the same way Toyota Camry and Corolla are.

10 years is when you really should do a heavy refresh in the engine bay. Stem the tide of oil leaks, replace perished rubber hoses, tuneup (plugs & leads) because lets be honest you never replaced those unless one was obviously broken, fix exhaust leaks, pray cat is not dead and you didnt luck out on a model with factory defects like for example Ford EcoBoost wet belt disintegrating into rubber debris in oil pickup ($10K job). Tons of brands went for lower tension piston rings in the name of ecology and gas mileage, GM EcoTec, Stellantis Tigershark, even Toyotas end up burning oil like crazy and need full engine rebuilds/new engines. Obligatory they stopped making them like they used to :) 10 years is a very dangerous age for a used car right now.

ICE cars are practically falling apart between service windows when compared to EV.

Well they are, it’s a common complaint about modern cars.

https://roadwarriornews.com/autoenshittification-allows-car-...

Funny. My Tesla has proven itself to be repairable. And has needed fewer repairs than my ICE car. As for the "will soon require", as https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-long-does-a-tesla-ba... verifies, at 200,000 miles a Tesla still averages being able to hold 90% of original charge. The average ICE car does not survive to 200,000 miles.

While some do need batteries sooner, some ICE cars need new engines sooner. It's a wash. Average lifespan is comparable.

(Electric would win hands down if Tesla had better manufacturing quality though.)

Knowing several people driving 10+ year old Tesla's, I have to disagree with you.

1. Yes, the range is a little less. One person got their battery replaced by a 3rd party specialist. Runs great.

2. They certainly are repairable, just take it to Tesla service or a 3rd party mechanic.

3. Even if the battery is $20k, now you essentially have a new car for only $20k.

Not really convinced the logic is right here. If the battery dies there’s still options before replacing it with a new one from the manufacturer at retail price.

Even then, batteries in EVs don’t have a 100% failure rate. There are still many 15 year old Leafs driving around on the original battery, and I’m not sure the out-and-out failures (I.e. not including gradual capacity loss) are a high number either.

Modern EVs (2016-present) have even lower failure rates again (below 1% within 200k miles including those replaced due to capacity loss)

So true!

> Tesla for example garuntees >=70% capacity for 8 years or 100k miles.

If you're used to buying used vehicles - that's not sufficient.

For context, all the cars I've bought in the last 20+ years have been at least 8 years old when I bought them. I can get an 8 year old Toyota/Honda and know I'm good for the next 5-7 years.[1]

Buying an 8 year old used Tesla with only 75% capacity? No way.

[1] Likely a lot longer. I'm right now driving a 22 year old vehicle that only started showing issues a year ago.

I'd rather they guarantee a fairly inexpensive replacement. When electrics can already give you range anxiety, 70% capacity is a deal-breaker.

100k isn't all that many for a modern used car and that's a pretty sizable hit on the range given that it's by far the biggest limitation of an EV. Given those numbers it's reasonable that a used Tesla with say 125k miles might not be able to do a 150 mile round trip on a full battery. That's a pretty big limitation for some people.

8 years or 100k miles is bare minimum I would expect a car to last without major repair work.

These cars are not worth a lot after the warranty ends because the battery replacement cost exceeds the value of the car.

>long battery warranties.

My 2009 Prius is still running at 231k, for reference.

With ICE cars, typically manufacturer warranties only are valid for the original purchaser.

All well and good but 8 years isn't that old for a car. I don't even look at cars that new. I start at 10+ years old. The drivetrain on any car should last 20 years if it's not abused and given reasonable care and even if you end up needing to replace the engine or transmission that's a few thousand dollars on an older car. What would a new battery on a 10 year old Tesla cost you? Can you even buy one?

Look to BYD instead of Tesla if you want to find rapid advancement. Tesla has not been well managed for a few years, BYD recently passed them to become the biggest EV seller

I bought Hyundai, which charges 2x faster than the Tesla

Another thing to consider is the Tesla likely makes up the majority of the used EV inventory, and Tesla has become a toxic brand

I think it's also fair to argue that it's probably more perceived, than actual.

People are obsessed with EV range, and massively concerned that used EV have degraded batteries.

Most likely there are some market inefficiencies here. Good for you, buy a cheap used EV ;)

Also many EVs are still not attractive to price sensitive consumers. And the price insensitive ones, won't buy used EV.

Listen, I'm literally just describing basic market dynamics here - my post is not intended as an endorsement of plainly observable phenomena.

The depreciation/utility curve has always been aggressive no matter what product you're buying. Is a 2 year-old ICE car twice as bad as a new one? Is a 2 year-old TV? Clearly not, yet they are all worth that in the open market.

For EVs the depreciation curve is especially aggressive because of perceived advancements. Are the advancements worth buying new? I dunno! You tell me - but this is clearly being reflected in the market.

From a strict utilitarian standpoint, optimizing your depreciation/utility function should mean you're buying almost every single thing used. But yet lots of people don't do that. Humans are empirically not very good utilitarians!

> And 2 years old EV is not twice as bad as current one

The new-vs-used price difference in equipment comes from multiple factors, of which "better features" is one part.

Consider what would happen if you gave someone this choice:

1. Keep your 10-year-old car. (No major upgrades from stock.)

2. Pay $X to trade it for its identical factory-sibling which was made the same day but was stored in a timeless stasis-bubble until today, so that it still has its original new-car smell.

I can't imagine anyone saying: "Well, there are zero new features, so I'll swap them for $0."

P.S.: The issues are even more obvious if the person is choosing between buying someone else's 10-year-old car versus paying an extra premium for the time-warp one, because there's uncertainty about the first vehicle's history and maintenance.

Range though is only one aspect to take into account when quantifying the "quality".

> If so, why aren't used dealers just including a battery swap in the price?

I think that is the main thing that needs to be figured out. I suspect the problem is that you need to get OEM battery replacements for older model cars and those aren't yet readily available or cheap. We are going to need aftermarket batteries to drive price competition in the market. The current car manufacturers aren't incentivised to support a secondary market when they are still focused on primary sales. Also not in the ICE market there is much more ability to scale capacity. The supply chain constraints for EVs, and batteries are much tighter, though that keeps getting better.

> "What part of EVs is "rapidly advancing technologically"?"

Battery capacity, motor efficiency (getting more range out of the same battery), charging rate (800V architectures for example that let you charge > 150kW), battery chemistry (wider operating temp envelope, affects charging and driving efficiency depending on environment)... the list goes on.

The batteries are also getting cheaper - which is to say for the same $ you're now (generally) getting a larger battery.

> "If so, why aren't used dealers just including a battery swap in the price?"

Because the batteries are in fact not swappable from one gen to the next, because the power electronics around them are different, peak current draw is different (and that depends on the motor it's mated with!).

Like I know it's tempting and attractive to imagine EVs like regular cars with some giant-ass AA batteries installed on them, but that's not how they work! The battery is specced as a unit with the entire electrical system and drive motor options!

Batteries need to be split into several replaceable modules, so the entire car isn't a write-off if there's a fault or damage affecting the battery

Ideally, these battery modules would be standardised and used across a wide range of vehicles.

Even 20 years ago after I got out of college the advice to "buy a couple year old Honda Civic for cheap" had stopped working because everyone knew those cars were solid so the lightly used ones already barely cost less than new and the new ones often had cheap financing deals.

Cash for clunkers destroyed mountains of cars which increased pollution and forced a bunch of people up the food chain with regard to competition for used cars.

I recently bought a used 2023 Camry with 29K miles fully loaded, for 29K. New for the same features which I wanted comes out to 42.6K according to the Toyota configure website, and I assume there might even be some extra fee on top of that possibly...

Right or wrong, the _saying_ is that "a new car loses half its value as soon as you drive off the lot." I've heard that repeated from many people across multiple regions in regards to buying a new vehicle. I've always heard half, never 10%, even if 10% is the more demonstrable amount.

The actual reason why you can't get a Model S in Australia is that Tesla does not manufacture a right hand drive version any more. You're equally out of luck in Japan, the UK, etc.

Also ironically their Chinese made car is said to have better build quality than the US made one.

I think they meant the reverse. The majority of US EV sales are of Tesla's: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/15/auto-brands-leading-the...

The main issue with smartphones is software support, as it essentially acts like a built-in time bomb.

Buying an older-generation flagship model to get better features than a current-generation midrange model of the same market price isn't very attractive when it'll have to be replaced after 2 years instead of 5 years.

The reality is that there's no margin in cheap cars. You need to look at numbers instead of vibes.

The difference between 4 crank-up window regulators and 4 power window regulators is less than $100. 4 power lock actuators cost less than $20. Switches for all the above are, what, maybe $10?

The same math applies to power mirrors, auto climate control, heated seats, cruise control, and all the rest.

The production cost of a car with "power everything" vs. "manual everything" is a few hundred dollars at most. But consumers expect a much bigger discount for the inconvenience of missing those features (or, conversely, are willing to pay a much larger premium to add those features to a baseline car).

That the US doesn't have cheap cars is simply the reality of what the market demands. Cheap (new) cars don't sell (for more than what it costs to produce them).

My (admittedly very, very limited) personal experience owning cars actually suggests cars are getting cheaper over the past couple decades. Specifically, my data looks like this:

- A new Honda Accord LX in 2003 was ~$19k

- A new Honda Accord LX in 2020 was ~$23k

In today's dollars, that's roughly $33k and $29k, respectively. These numbers are very approximate, but it means the same car model in 2020 was about 12% less expensive than the one in 2003. And the new version has a whole lot of improvements and features the old one didn't. (They cheaped out and removed the lock from the glove compartment though!)

Stepping back and thinking about the complexities that go into manufacturing a modern automobile, it's wild to me that they can cost so little compared to what you get. It's a machine that can travel 200+ thousand miles and last for decades with barely any maintenance.

Commercial-scale vehicles (semi trucks, busses) cost an order of magnitude more than personal vehicles, yet share many of the same complexities. Like, how are cars so cheap for what they are? Manufacturing volume, I guess.

2026 Corolla is $25k.

I saw a manual transmission Nissan Versa for $17k.

How much cheaper can they get?

>>Old ICE cars are basically the same as new ones.

I'm not sure that's totally true. The rate of change might be lower, but new ICE vehicles have higher efficiency (directly correlating to longer EV range) and are safer, more comfortable, and quieter.

I am definitely on the pro-EV side, nearly an evangelist I suppose, but ICE vehicles do improve.

Hybrids with eCVTs existed 5-15 years ago. You just happened to not be driving one.

This makes a ton of sense considering the recently expired tax credit. The moment you drive an EV off the lot in September or earlier it’s worth $7,500 less than the normal depreciation.

I think if we give the used market a few years without the tax credit it’ll start to look more normal.

Our Leaf is still going fine after 12 years. But a 2013 budget EV is hilariously low spec by today standards. So yeah if you're looking for family heirloom qualities in a car it's a wrong choice. Most people don't drive old cars for sentimental value though.

That’s what I always thought, not having the proper infrastructure is a greater problem because not every apartment has private garage with electricity. In the hyper center of big towns they will never dig the streets to install chargers for every few parking spots and superchargers are rare for the amount of cars there is compared to 3min for gas with ubiquitous infrastructure. Where I live there is often parkings with 50+ cars and no or 2 chargers

I've told this story before, but I like telling it, so here goes.

I once went shopping for a Mustang Cobra, back when they were cool and I was young and into those kinds of cars. The local Ford dealer had their new car lot next door to the used lot, literally separated only by a driveway.

I went to look at the 2004 Cobras they had a half dozen of, and they were marked down (IIRC) $8000 off MSRP. I thought "Cool, the 04 is no different from the 03, so I wonder what I can get one of those on the used lot for." And walked over to look. The 03s were priced higher than the marked-down price on the 04s a couple hundred feet away. At the same dealer.

I brought it up with the used car manager, incredulous at what he was asking for the used ones. His response was "Yeah, go buy one of the new ones, these will sell just fine." I asked why and he said there is a whole class of buyer that won't even look at new cars. That the new car market and the used car markets are not in fact sharing the same space, even if it seems like it would make sense for people to cross-shop. So he priced his used cars at whatever the market would bear, which turned out to be higher than Ford would unload the new ones for.

Does this happen often? Perhaps not. But over the years I've bought new cars on several occasions where the used equivalent was going to save me a whopping $3-4K for a car that was two or three years older and with some miles. It did not make any financial sense whatsoever to buy the used one for such a small discount.

> Instead, they’ll get something a couple of years old and save maybe a few thousand dollars on a $40,000 vehicle.

A used 2 year old Ioniq 5 is selling for about $15-20K less than MSRP.

Some years ago, a friend bought a 2 year old Forester - for a full $10K less than MSRP.

It's not a "few thousand dollars".

(Oh, and personally, if you buy a 2 year old car - you're paying way too much. 6-8 year old cars are a good value).

There was a big change in the used market after Covid, that may not have fully worked itself out yet.

Your in-laws are correct and your friend is wrong. Historically the largest depreciation hit on new cars is in the first few years. Getting a low mileage used car that's a few years old is typically the sweet spot for value. You have to price out new and used to understand where the best deals are but generally it's true.

That did go strange for a while during COVID but has mostly become true again.

Plenty of people must find this worthwhile, otherwise sellers wouldn’t be able to find buyers and they’d be forced to reduce price if they want to sell.

Plus, the listed price is often aspirational. Savvy buyers will typically negotiate the price down.

I have to admit that I’m not a savvy buyer and always buy new though. But I know people who do this very successfully.

That's how it goes in my experience with the used market, for anything, really. People go online, browse around the listings to get a feel of the prices, and post a price based on that. That's a mistake. The prices that are easy to find and most common are for the items that aren't moving. When someone finally posts an item at a price that buyers are willing to pay it usually gets sold in a few days, if it's something in demand.

I've only ever found good deals on used stuff by pure chance or by watching the market over weeks. It takes both patience and decisiveness, otherwise someone else swoops in before you.

I felt like my new factory order car buy recently was a big time commitment and stressful to get a fair price.

"Compliance cars" are cars that manufacturers need to sell to activate subsidies or avoid financial penalties.

As deadlines get close you got really good lease deals on these cars.

Simply not much demand. Not enough buyers of used cards want them. Dealers will bid in auctions to price point where they can make reasonable profit. I would expect something like say two thousand and then some percentage on auction price to make retail price.

They are doing it weekly. They know what sells at what price and how fast. So price discovery can work pretty well and mostly correct.

Now more questions can be asked why there is no demand? Is the initial price maybe too high? Or is there some other factors.

That is so stupid it hurts.

We took her 'useless' 80mi range for a 350mi day trip in the mountains this summer while the petrol car got repaired.

Sure it meant a few stops at fast chargers, +60mi in 15mins for quick stops.

We had 3 meals at places with chargers so it got 3 full charges while we ate.

It was still a great day out despite taking longer than it would in the petrol car.

My partner drove 900km up from Sydney to Brisbane. 3 stops to charge, no issues, easy cruising, relaxing breaks. Admittedly it was not during school holidays.

Nissan Leaf: 2025.

Toyota Prius Prime: 2023

I would personally run that model 3 into the ground.

Isn't it still a PITA to charge for more than half of the population ?

Most of EU cities have the same issues. Due to appartment density an EV makes sense only if you own your house, run a cable from your flat to the street, or win the charging lottery and/or fight for a spot at some shared location.

Alternatively you can make it a routine to charge at a public spot while you go shopping, but it means you're double annoyed when it doesn't work out for whatever reason (spots already taken etc)

Me neither. My fuel costs went from £1000 a year to £100. And I don't even do that many miles. Why isn't everyone jumping on this? Meanwhile a lot of moaning about the "cost of living crisis". People are strange.

For someone who doesn't drive an EV, what is that in $$/mi?

That's unfortunate. I also had a few cousins buy a Tesla just before the price changes and credit happened. I paid $25k or so less than them at the end of 2024 for a better car. Early 2020s in general was an awful time to be a car buyer.

I think I would eventually win the bet. I just don't think my timeline or funding is in a position where I want to wait it out. I think TSLA is detached from the fundamentals and I haven't heard a good rationalization that explains what I'm missing. I get that the stock market is aspirational, the price you see is the collective hopes & dreams for the future, but at some level there needs to be an explanation, a vision that seems plausible. What is Tesla doing today that leads to their current valuation, what does that path even look like?

I think there is really not enough good data to draw conclusions yet. The EV market is so young, and Tesla was basically the only non-compliance EV for several years. At this moment the expected value on my 2024 Lightning is way closer to what I paid for it than the expected value on my 2023 Model 3 is compared to what I paid. But that could just be situational.

I have been telling people, though, on the Model 3 forum that they should be leasing unless they are extremely sure they'll keep the car for a lot of years. Tesla's residuals have been way more optimistic than what the used car market suggested reality would look like. Only a problem if you sell at about three years, but maybe worth hedging your bets.

Point taken, it was just the loud ones ruining it. Though in my mind, when I think "anti-Tesla people" I am casually excluding the people who are not vocally so. Arbitrary, yes, but how I tend to think about it. I know a lot of people who are anti-Tesla in the sense that they will never buy one, but aside from that you will never hear anything from them.

In an attempt to keep this conversation about technology, all I'll say is that Elon is a self described free speech absolutist, which is what he's enacted on X - and hence the unbanning of "known nazis". I have to agree with this (a position I've not always held). It's better to bring out and allow speech to be held and more importantly: challenged. This at least is something to treasure in the US, as we are losing here in the UK.

I don't own a Tesla

If you put 170k miles on a gas car, wouldn't you have paid for $10-12k in maintenance over that time? At that point you've done 20 oil changes, replaced the spark plugs & air filter 5 times, replaced the timing belt and transmission fluid twice, replaced the brake pads 3-4 times, replaced the brake rotors, water pump, alternator, and maybe even a head gasket, starter motor, and fuel pump.

Assuming you averaged 30mpg, you also put $20k in gas through it. At the current US average retail electricity price of 17 cents per kWh and EV efficiency of 250Wh/mile, recharging would be $7,200 for that same distance. The fuel savings alone are more than the cost of replacing the battery.

My BmW gets OTA software updates, I assume most cars get them these days.

Maybe this explains one reason the OEMs hate CarPlay so much! If Apple would start arbitrarily cutting off cars over 5 years old from CarPlay, I bet suddenly GM, Rivian, etc would be all about CarPlay. Of course Apple would only do that if the carmakers agreed to give Apple 30% :D

1. Parent included brakes, but I think brakes should be on the “ICE only” list. EVs maybe use brakes 5% of the time. Maybe less. (And I don’t buy corrosion from salt causing more wear than friction.)

2. The only thing left are tires and washer fluid. I’m not convinced that these make up 2/3 maintenance costs. All of the fluids — oil, coolant, transmission — plus components that wear down/need replacing (alternator, transmission) — there’s no way these are only 1/3 of all maintenance.

With a battery how fast you charge it, how "full" you charge it to, how deeply you discharge it, the temperature at which you keep it, etc., all affect the degradation rate of the battery. So, because charging a battery from 68-75% is better on the battery than charging from 93-100%, storing the battery full is worse, etc., it isn't necessarily true that "7% charging is the same as 7% charging".

It is.

I mean, keeping it closer to 50% might be better, but the returns are so diminished by that point that it's a rounding error of a rounding error.

I keep my limit to 75% unless I have a long drive planned, and nearly all my charging at home. I'll probably have <5% degradation after 100,000 miles.

Underrated point! Heavier EV's typically burn through tires and wear components in the suspension faster.

And less brake bits, because of regenerative braking. But the rest stands.

But it's basically the same size as the F-150 from the 80s, and double the size of the Ford Ranger from that era.

By no means is it a compact truck any more.

It is a truck.

Unibody might not be commonly used by truck makers, but using it doesn't mean it's not a truck.

A Tread Unibody bulk truck can haul 50K pounds and no one would call it a ute.

I've always found that to be a silly distinction, like it's a thing that matters to use cases in the same way that axle type matters, but it's not the sole distinguishing marker of whether something is a "truck". There are various non-trucks that are body-on-frame - BMW i3, Ford Crown Vic, Suzuki Jimny, etc. (The highest-spec Jimny tows less than the lowest-spec Honda Ridgeline.)

Not all the tech is the same, but I wasn't specifically referring to the batteries (I did say the Chinese have innovated themselves).

But it's an open secret that there was a lot of "turnover" at the Chinese Tesla plants, both shortly after building and operating them, as the Chinese took a lot of the manufacturing processes, tech, etc. And yeah, it also wasn't just Tesla - but it did allow the Chinese to catch up (and eventually surpass) them. The fact that there was so much direct and indirect supports from the government was a huge benefit. This has happened multiple times (French fell for it with high speed rail, Germans and to a lesser extent Americans with cars, Apple/Koreans with mobile phones, everybody with microelectronics, etc).

I don’t know why they made the choices they did. You will note that I said I was guessing at development.

The evidence is that engineers on greenfield projects at multiple companies on multiple continents all arrived at roughly the same solution.

Make of that what you will.

A belt driven AC powered by a combustion engine is not at all the same thing as a DC electric heat pump system.

Yes they both use compressors and refrigerant, but essentially none of the expensive and hard to engineer parts are interchangeable.

If that was true you could just replace your broken fridge with a car AC system, or for that matter just use a fridge to heat your house. After all they all use the same “not magical” technology.

As it turns out the underlying concept/technology is pretty simple, but adapting it to be fit for purpose is where the complexity lies.

If it was that easy the car companies would have done it instead of designing a novel resistive heating system that can only be used in their lowest volume cars.

Yes, I’m sure the original comment had unpaved surfaces, for example, in mind when they wrote that, and not heavily traveled corridors shared by all types, like I-5, or something like the stretch of I-95 between Philly and NYC, one of the busiest sections of roads in the US.

Versus the situation with dirt and gravel. Such a huge percentage of highway miles driven in proportion on gravel and dirt, everyone going to work and back home on gravel, yep.

EVs do cause more damage than most ICE by virtue of being heavier. But you know what causes even more damage? Heavy commercial vehicles. The overall proportion of damage is still vastly outweighed (heh) by a single heavy vehicle. Multiplied by thousands upon thousands of heavy semis day after day after day. The proportional amount is insignificant.

Source: a pavement engineer in my circle.

And I’d take issue with your point about surfaces that semis can’t drive on, even once. Which are those? Dirt mining and logging roads that one might immediately reach for? Those are traveled by loaded semis already. Worn paths in fields? Already driven by loaded grain trailers, but they’re only used a few times per year. Source for that: I grew up on farms during harvest time. Perhaps quaint covered wood bridges over creeks in the middle of nowhere? Oh, I know! Those rope bridges over rivers in Peru, I know I’m itching to drive my new Peterbilt over that.

I don’t know why I waste my time refuting contrarian “nuh-uh!” comments that are posted just for the sake of being contrarian. It’s like the only thing posted here.

None of this is relevant for the scenario you originally proposed and what I was commenting on.

When a car is totaled, there is no argument for diminished value, since you are given the full pre-accident value of the car.

Your points are valid for some cases (albeit so rare that you found an article from over a decade ago about a single case that made the national news, in a province that has since had several major overhauls to their insurance regs.), but have nothing to do with your prior argument or the comments I made.

Leave the goalposts where you originally had them.

Good news is you stumbled on first Leaf model with actually actively thermally managed battery so at least in theory if Nissan didnt screw anything your battery wont degrade like older 1 and 2 gens.

No his point was that there could be a cost to replacement that would be extremely expensive and that put his wife off. It would puts most people off.

It doesn't matter what the rates are compared to Petrol/Diesel cars, it is an unknown and large potential cost with an expensive initial purchase especially compared to a second hand vehicle that would fulfil the exact same function.

What's being missed here --likely from the context of technical people who have never had a sales position-- is that whatever you might want to say about the technical realities of batteries is utterly irrelevant.

I know batteries degrade over time. I know random failures do not happen unless, well, something random happens, which is generally rare.

As an engineer who has designed and manufactured dozens of products and then had to go sell them, what I am telling you is that the EV industry has done a shit job selling risk mitigation.

There are virtually no stories of IC cars requiring $25K repairs after N years. Nobody buying a new or used IC vehicle ever thinks about having to spend at those levels, because is just does not happen except for really freak circumstances (your engine and transmission commit suicide).

In the EV world the case is different. Someone (my wife and others) don't go from "Let's install a large solar array to get ready to buy a couple of Teslas" to "I am not touching an EV if it was free" out of nowhere.

That happened because the fear of the $25K expense per vehicle got planted into her head when reports of this happening surfaced. You never hear from happy customers who put 200K miles on an EV. You definitely do hear from cases where the manufacturer charged someone $25K or more for a battery replacement.

This is called "Positioning" and there's a very famous marketing book on the subject. Once your product or a concept owns a certain position in someone's mind it is incredibly difficult to change it.

You know exactly how positioning works. If I were to ask you who you'd call to fix your plumbing; where to go to get the best coffee, burger, steak, etc. You will typically answer that question instantly using whatever brand or company owns that positioning in your brain. That's how it works.

Well, the EV companies have managed to own the "$25K battery replacement" position. They should have come out of the gate with an aggressively low replacement cost, the kind that nobody would every object paying. In my post I proposed that this number is $5K. Why? Because I know that, if this guarantee existed, this would be the number that would put two Teslas on our driveway right now.

Don't send links about battery longevity and your personal anecdotal data. They are irrelevant. This is the equivalent of "Sell me this pen" for the EV question about batteries.

Maybe this example can drive the point further: I have a fear of going up on a tall ladder, you know, the kind you might use to get up on a roof. I get up past a certain point and my brain says "Hard stop! No f-ing way". Now, intellectually, I know that millions of people go up and down these things every day without a problem. I also know that, as long as I secure the bottom very well and make sure the top can't slide around, I'll be safe. I further understand that I have to keep the vertical projection of the center of gravity within the base of the triangle formed by the ladder against the house. I know these things. And I know that I will be perfectly safe. And yet, in my brain, the "tall ladders are unsafe" positioning has taken hold and that's that. I know I can fix it. And it will take a lot of work.

That's my point. Positioning. Not physics.

Costs drop like a rock once vehicles get old enough that they can't be financed, which means dealers won't sell them, which means they won't be bundled with 3rd party warranties and service plans, which means that the owner will be the one paying and there's actual pressure to control costs (because the owner has no party down the line to pass costs onto).

For example, for the longest time Nissan CVTs were "nonrebuildable, send it back and buy a reman" now any idiot can rebuild one for under a grand in parts.

4L60 and E4OD rebuilds were also $$$ for a long time now they're dirt cheap too.

> do not imagine you'll keep it long term or hand it off to a kid or whatever.

i don't agree, my friend has been driving the same Toyota LandCruiser for 20 years. I will have no problems handing my 2016 4runner down to my kid who turns 16 this December. The 4runner will last another 10 years easy.

Oh, and new "high" oil and fuild change intervals. They'll get you through warranty, but your car won't make it to 150k or 200k.

But you can't change a headlight bulb if they're a sealed unit, because those don't have bulbs, but with basic tools, you can certainly change a headlight.

But also, if you have a vehicle with a sealed headlight, you're probably not having to change it every other winter.

The must fun I've ever had while driving was with the family '99 Honda Civic. Zero power. Zero torque. But, man, it was like driving a go kart in the streets. I'd zip through mountain passes with the engine revving to hell but in reality I'd only be barely going the speed limit.

I did the same mountain pass in my Subaru recently and didn't even notice I was going 20mph over the speed limit. The engine was silent and still responsive.

Those are improvements overall for the environment and safety of course. However as usually improvement in one area is not necessary an improvement in another area. I was referring to "sport" performance of a car or ICE engine then the emission regulation held back the power output and performance of the drive train and the safety regulations added a lot of weight and size to the cars therefore hurting handling.

>Are those not improvements?

Said no pedestrian hidden behind my A-pillar (just kidding I still drive a 1980s minivan, one of the poor people ones, not the hipster one, don't get your hopes up).

More a story about the body shop / car insurance interplay and blue collar skilled service industry / Private Equity dynamics.

My beat up truck got quoted 6k to replace a dent caused by a fender bender.

Why would I do that? There is no equivalent to that in an EV.

The only part that I think you might be trying to make this case for is the battery but even NMC batteries at 1,000 cycles and 200 mile range will by far exceed the scrap mileage of the average car.

LFP batteries with their higher cycle count will probably be transplanted to new cars.