Tesla’s strategy of building an upmarket luxury sports sedan while it figured out how to actually mass-produce cars was pretty smart, huh? Think of all those Mercedes S-Class, Audi A7, and BMW M5 owners that ended up in a Model S. I bring this up because Lucid is dropping prices on its very good Air sedans and it’s a reminder that, in a higher interest rate environment, it’s gonna be tough for new entrants into the EV market.
In related news, Rivian’s about to announce Q2 earnings and investors/analysts have some important questions about how that’s all going to work. Almost every major automaker is dramatically increasing the number of electric vehicles its producing, but in the interim these companies still make their actual money from gas cars and so, ahem, they’re not exactly pumped about the impending fuel economy regulations.
And speaking of pumps, let’s have a recall! Because it’s been a while since we’ve had a good recall.
Lucid Drops Prices On The Air By As Much As $12,400
If you go to the Lucid Motors offers page, like I do every morning, you’ll see some interesting price drops. The base Air Pure AWD is now just $82,400 before a $1,500 destination charge, down $5,000 from before. The Air Touring is down to $95,000, and the Air Grand Touring, like the one I just drove, now starts at $125,600, which is a $12,400 improvement (thanks, Saudi Arabia!).
It’s here that I need to be careful. Lucid has, like other companies, variously raised and lowered prices throughout its short existence. It has adjusted its big Grand Touring model so it doesn’t have to have all of the fancy optional features, which allowed for a lower price at one point. This seems to be a special offer and it’s not clear how long it’ll last.
While Tesla has seemingly dramatically altered the prices of its vehicles on a whim, traditional automakers also do this. The difference is that traditional automakers have dealerships, so they can keep the price of your Wrangler at $54k and then offer ’employee pricing’ at the dealership level and essentially knock $5-6k off a vehicle overnight. Direct-to-consumer companies don’t have that option.
All that being said, I do think there’s an inherent softness in the startup luxury EV market. For a while, all Tesla Model S sales were conquests (i.e., taking a buyer from another brand). Now automakers are fighting back with their own versions of luxury EVs and, while you may think the Lucid Air is better than the EQS (it is), some people want a Mercedes. Brand loyalty still exists.
Here’s an important series of words from a Reuters report on the price drop:
But rising interest rates to curb inflation and fears of recession have dampened consumer demand, prompting market leader Tesla to slash prices this year.
That has sent ripples through the industry, making it difficult for money-losing startups such as Lucid, which also face competition from traditional automakers launching electric models, to grab market share.
Helping some lower-priced models woo customers is a $7,500 federal tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act, but more expensive cars such as Lucid’s Air are not eligible.
BMW, Audi, Ford, GM, et cetera are not going away. They will be here for a lot longer and have pickup trucks/crossovers to keep the balance sheet healthy. The big question is: Can startups like Lucid and Faraday Future last long enough to build enough manufacturing capacity to eventually offer a more mainstream and affordable EV?
(Editor’s Note: I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the next great EV is a cheap one. I understand the realities of the Tesla Playbook by going upmarket first, but the market has moved on. The first automaker in the U.S. than can make a truly great, modern EV starting around $25,000-$30,000 will have a genuine hit on its hands. —PG)
What Can We Expect From Rivian’s Q2 Earnings Report?
Hey, funny that, in addition to Lucid, we should be getting a Q2 earnings report from EV truck/suv/vanmaker Rivian tomorrow. The company had a great Q2, delivering 12,640 vehicles and building nearly 14,000 vehicles, both records.
Here’s what everyone wants to know, via Automotive News:
But competition is picking up in the EV pickup market, with Ford cutting prices on the F-150 Lightning last month and Tesla set to launch its Cybertruck pickup by year’s end. Rising EV inventories are pushing sales incentives higher.
“As pricing becomes more and more important because of rising interest rates, because of more competition, this is going to be something that everybody’s going to want to keep an eye on,” said Travis Hoium, an analyst at The Motley Fool, a stock-focused website.
“There’s a limited amount of demand right now for electric vehicles, so every increase in supply means that companies are fighting for the same customers,” Hoium said in a video.
At $74,800, the R1T, as they note, is way more expensive than a base F-150 Lightning, but I’m not entirely convinced those are aggressively cross-shopped. If you want a Rivian I think you want a Rivian. The same is true for an F-150.
As for the bolded point above, I do think that the $70k+ EV market probably has a real hard cap in this borrowing environment, but there’s probably a decent amount of demand for EVs in the $30-60k range… if more companies can actually build vehicles at that price.
Automakers Don’t Think They Can Reach Goal Of 67% EV Sales In A Decade
For all this talk of automakers aggressively switching over to EVs, the best way to understand what their real projections are is to look at how they’re reacting to upcoming EPA fuel economy regulations.
The Associated Press has a well-reported feature that sums up the various issues involved and you should read all of it. I think climate change is real and I think we’re running out of time to address it, so I’m sympathetic to this administration’s plan to finally address it. I also think it’s going to be extremely hard.
Here’s how the EPA, in that article, frames it:
The EPA says the industry could meet the [new strict emissions limits] if 67% of new-vehicle sales are electric by 2032, a pace the auto industry calls unrealistic. However, the new rule would not require automakers to boost electric vehicle sales directly. Instead, it sets emissions limits and allows automakers to choose how to meet them.
The AP goes on to note that even if 67% of new sales are EVs by 2032, it might not actually be enough to lower emissions since so many gas- or diesel-burning cars will still be on the road then—or still in production. Green groups agree, and several are demanding even stricter emissions rules. And what do automakers say?
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents companies such as General Motors, Ford and Toyota that make most new vehicles sold in the United States, argues the EPA standards are “neither reasonable nor achievable in the time frame covered.”
The alliance says the agency is underestimating the cost and difficulty of making EV batteries, including short supplies of critical minerals that also are used in laptops, cellphones and other items. Sizable gaps in the charging network for long-distance travel and for people living in apartments pose another obstacle.
This is one place where Chinese automakers, consumers, and policymakers are ahead of us. Not only is China the world’s best mass builder of car batteries, it also has a populace that’s ok with smaller vehicles and automakers willing to sell them things like the BYD Seagull.
Hyundai-Kia Recalling Vehicles Over Fire Risk, Ask Owners To Park Outside
Both Hyundai and Kia are having to recall vehicles over a faulty oil pump assembly that could cause the pump controller to overheat and melt. This recall impacts certain 2023-2024 Palisade, 2023 Tucson, Sonata, Elantra, and Kona models. For Kia, the models include certain 2023 Soul, Sportage, and 2023-2024 Seltos vehicles.
Here’s the description from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s report:
The Multi-Layer Ceramic Capacitor (MLCC) located on the printed circuit board in the controller of the Idle Stop & Go (ISG) electric oil pump assembly for the transmission may have been damaged by the supplier during the
manufacturing process. A damaged capacitor can cause an electrical short
circuit while driving and may result in thermal damage isolated to the ISG
electric oil pump circuit board, electrical connector and wiring harness.
Thermal damage at the electric oil pump increases the risk of a fire.
It’s estimated that 1% or fewer of vehicles actually have the defect, but just to be safe maybe don’t park close to your house if you have one of the impacted cars until a dealer can look at your Kia.
The Big Question
What percentage of the U.S. auto market will EVs make up by 2032? I’m looking for a number here. The number was about 5.6% last year. Through the first half of 2023, we’re at about 7.2%. What does the next decade look like?
I’ve been saying this for years now, you can call the EV the future all you want, but it’s not a future that is coming any time soon. Even Mercedes is going back to the V8 for it’s 63 series AMG models. Nothing against EVs, they’re really cool but we as a population aren’t all gonna suddenly have EVs by 2032 it’s just not happening.
Then what’s needed is to ratchet the tax on gasoline through the roof. I’m sympathetic that cars alone isn’t going to solve climate change, we need to also clobber emissions from powerful corporations: airplanes (Elon Musk’s “private” plane releases something like 2 metric tons of carbon per hour for his commute between Texas and California), ships, combustion powered power plants, etc. But ya gotta start somewhere. Maybe gotta cut back the distance people and goods travel.
[edit: WTF happened to my “Junkerdave” ID???]
The problem with a gas tax increase is that it’s really going to hammer the poor, who are the least able to change their lifestyle to meet climate goals. Our (The USA) entire society is designed around cars, so it’s absurd to punish people for merely participating in the world they were born in to.
Gas tax as a way to fund road infrastructure is outdated anyway
Cut all subsidies, tax breaks, benefits for patroleum production is a good start to level the playing field.
Infrastructure taxes should be assessed as part of registration/ excise tax, and should scale with vehicle value and weight.
You want to drive a EV Hummer, cool, but that thing is hard on roads and bridges, so you will pay more.
Of course it hammers the poor. In our society, everything hammers the poor. But how do we steeply reduce gas consumption 1) without hurting non-rich drivers, and 2) without stepping on the toes of megacorporations like Ford, GM, BMW, and other companies who give massive contributions to politicians? I’d love to hear some fresh ideas.
this post a test to see if the nick has gotten fixed
Work from home jobs could be effective at reducing gas consumption.
Sure. How’s that work for plumbers? (In the news today, Zoom wants their employees to start coming back to the office.)
Lower income jobs are disproportionately *not* from home.
Raise the fuel tax only on the plus and premium grades of gasoline required mostly by more expensive vehicles. HIgher taxes on premium may also prevent a few poorer folks from making the big mistake of buying used luxury vehicles as their so-called dream cars only to find out they can’t afford to maintain them.
While a nice idea, there’s plenty of expensive/thirstier vehicles that run on regular – like any number of trucks and SUVs. Picking some at random – a 4Runner or a Tahoe 5.3 take regular and get 17 mpg combined, a GLS or X7 take premium but get 20 combined for a GLS450 and 22 for xDrive40i. Of course none of them are being shopped for being eco conscious.
Also tbh, I don’t think most people are running average fuel costs before making those kinds of decisions, but there are people that get stuck trying to juggle payments and maintenance on efficient non-lux vehicles too.
Manufacturers: (after offering EVs mostly in the $60K+ range and killing off very successful and popular sub-$30k EVs) “Oh noes! We can’t possibly meet those sales targets! Nobody’s buying our EVs!”
I’m not even going to hazard a guess at what percentage of the new car market will be EVs in 2032 because too much depends on whether the automakers decide to play ball. Sure, they sell plenty of $60k+ ICE trucks and cars, but those are tried and true technology. But if they want to get people into EVs, they’re going to have to break into that lower-cost market and perhaps suck up some lower margins for a while.
Am I off base thinking automaker problems in selling enough EVs are because of the focus on large expensive models that use more materials? I don’t want to hear about materials shortages when the focus has been on making the largest cars with the largest batteries and most screens and most sensors.
I’d say about 35% of sales will be EV by 2032. And that’s aggressive. I see the problem as threefold: First, the biggest deterrent to EV sales is price and I don’t see that improving quickly. Second, charging infrastructure is going to still be an issue, though much better than now. Third, we’re just starting to see some long-term issues with EVs emerge as they become more common and age out; there will be enough glitches to further slow transition by consumers. Another factor is that drivers are hanging onto to vehicles an average of 12 years, so any ICE cars sold from this point forward won’t be off the road until 2035 at the earliest.
I think ’25-’26 is going to be when things start to really pick up. That’s when it sounds like the NACS adoption will be in full swing, and the more reasonably-priced cars will start to come on the market. I don’t think any of the real battery price advances are going to be available in quantity until ’30, if they actually pan out, like Toyota’s solid state battery development.
I don’t think we’ll break 10% until we start getting broad availability of EVs in the lower half of the market. There’s a pretty limited and pretty saturated market for the luxury stuff, especially with the economy the way it is right now. I think the Volvo EX30 is going in the right direction – cut out a lot of the fancy, high-tech, non-driving-related baubles and make a simpler car for a lower price that is a GOOD CAR.
Between now and 2032 when EV sales hit 25% it will be a wall that won’t budge much as only those in the top 1/4 of household income can afford any EV right now. Those same people will replace their EV every 4-5 yrs and used ones will trickle down, maybe the poors will be driving 2nd/3rd hand EVs by 2032.
In 5 yrs or so, the govt will let Chinese cheap EVs in and/or double/triple the tax credit. As 2032, 2035, 2040, 2050 EV goals are at least double realistic numbers.
I did some math about the $60,000 EV because I am a geek, and I like math.
Some financial advisors that I follow recommend paying no more than 8% of income on a car payment and planning to pay it off in 3 years. That’s pretty aggressive, and I know that many pay quite a bit more and drag out car longs for quite a bit longer, but I used these numbers as a conservative calculation of what someone could “afford”.
Using those numbers, a household with an income of $250,000 could “afford” a $60,000 car.
Households with such an income represent the top 7% in the US. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but the US is a big place with 131.2 million households. That works out to over 9 million households who could afford such a car. That’s a lot of cars!
Now, of course, many of those households are made up of multiple adults, each of whom require a car, so a single $60k EV wouldn’t be a reasonable solution for them.
But on the other hand, I think that the “3 year” part of the equation is a bit too conservative. You don’t need to get a new car every 3 years, so what about paying it off in 3 but keeping it for 5? Those 2 years are car-payment-free, and using the math above, that opens up affordability to the top 20% of households in the US (>26 million households). Keep the car for 10 years (cars last at least that long these days), and affordability opens up to nearly half of American households. Cut back in other areas to allow for paying more than 8% toward a car payment, and it opens up even more.
But that’s the math. There’s also the emotional side. Sixty-thousand dollars just feels like a ton of money to blow on a single thing — especially a thing that you intend to fling down the highway at high speeds — even if the math says that you can afford it.
I’ll just keep my 10,20 and 60 year old paid off cars and save even more.
That’s where the smart money is!
Depends–10-year-old Honda, 20-y-o F150, and 1962 farm truck? Yes.
10-y-o Alfa, 20-y-o Phaeton, and 1962 280SL? Not so much.
Hell yeah
Nice math work. Is that number for all cars in a household? I can tell you that even if you are making that kind of money, you likely live in an expensive cost of living area and even that is unattainable with all other costs rolled in.
The other math I use is that based off of my 4.5 year/80k miles in my old ’16 Sonata PHEV, is that if you want to save money, you buy and drive a hybrid. You can get into one for a lot less up front than a full EV. Hell, even me with my current Sonata N Line, I am looking at about $600 annual fuel savings with my current 20k+ miles per year of driving vs possibly an AWD model 3 or Ioniq 5/6. Yes, you can get great “deals” on those now but those are still at least $10k more than my current car was.
Note: I live in eastern MA, which has one of the highest electricity rates in the country and middle of the road gasoline prices. Yeah, I understand the comparisons above are not apples to apples but close enough. You have to want to drive an EV, you don’t necessarily buy one to save money unless you have your own solar and/or live in a low cost to charge area.
Thanks. The 3-years/8% thing is just for a car purchase; I’ve read other financial rules of thumb that recommend not spending more than 20% of one’s income on all things car-related (not just payments but also insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, etc).
And as with all rules of thumb, it’s not a hard-and-fast law but rather a starting point. If you’re a car enthusiast, then your car will be a priority, so maybe you’re ok with spending more. Or if you have other priorities that take precedence, then you might skimp on the car to better afford those other priorities.
Your remark about high cost of living areas is interesting, and it’s something that I’ve thought about for a long time. Cars are one thing that costs (roughly) the same all across the country. That’s a little weird when you think about it. Look at the way you pay different amounts for housing, gas, even food in different areas, but a Honda Civic costs the same whether it’s Manhattan NYC or Manhattan, KS. So while someone may be living high on the hog in “flyover country” with a nice big house, that person’s car would be a bigger percentage of his/her total income than the same car would be in a higher cost of living area.
Our electric rates have been going down in Eastern MA.
Yes, three months ago it was over $0.485/kWh.
However my last bill it was down to $0.229/kWh, with declines leading up to it.
The natural gas price spike (MA’s base load is 53% nat. gas) has subsided in the wholesale market, and it’s being increasingly reflected in our rates. We’re basically back to where things were before the big spike that started in November 2022.
While there are valid criticisms of the concept, the Hype Cycle fits EVs quite well I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
As far as I can tell, we’ve crested the Peak of Inflated Expectations and are heading towards the Trough of Disillusionment. You’re starting to see actual negative press about EVs from formerly sympathetic outlets which, to me, signifies we’re on the way down.
The good news for EV advocates (but not good news for zealots) is if they keep following this curve, eventually we’ll reach the point where we’re using them in places where they make sense, and not using them where they don’t.
That curve seems to fit very well. One year ago we were at the “peak of inflated expectations” because of gas prices. I expect us to be in the trough for around five years while the DC fast charging infrastructure builds out. Once anyone can road trip an EV without any more thought than it takes to take a gas car, EVs will go mainstream.
Rivian at least gets that they need a smaller/cheaper vehicle. IIRC they’re working on cheaper with the smaller to come in 2025. With that probably starting about $45k, it’ll be right in the heart of the CUV market.
Point of sale tax rebates will be coming in 2024. But that will be a blessing and a curse. A blessing because the OTD price will be competitive with ICE vehicles. A curse because for lower income folks buying outright they don’t have enough tax liability to use the full credit. So some of it will be clawed back at tax time for people least able to afford it. Unless they lease and buy out the vehicle at the end. But I don’t expect the average American to know that or the dealer sales associates to know that either.
From what I understand, it’s a tax credit (lowers your tax burden, and gives you a refund, like the child tax credit), not a deduction (lowers the amount of your income that’s subject to taxation, like claiming your mortgage interest)
It’s a credit, but it cannot lower your tax liability below zero (it’s non-refundable, which some people misunderstand, thinking they can’t get overpayment refunds–you can). So it directly reduces your tax burden, but you still have to make around 50-60k or more to take full advantage. You’ll get a refund for overpayment, but no refund beyond what you’ve paid in (unless you have further refundable credits). That said, leasing can make it work for people with lower or higher incomes (or foreign vehicles). Not all companies do it, but some will pass the credit (which they can take under a commercial use clause) to the consumer. You’ll need to check with each company to see if they offer that.
I’m going to say 20 percent as long as the trend of making Richie Rich EVs continues. We should be building less expensive hybrids to get rid of range anxiety. In many cases, this would greatly reduce the amount of gasoline burned and it gives time for the charging infrastructure to develop. EVs don’t have to be an absolute solution at the start. I know some believe all gas cars should be immediatey driven into a huge ditch and buried, but ya know…we have a country full of people who have to get to work every day!
Yeah, hopefully it’s 0% EV’s and actually it should be ALL EV’s put in ditch and buried (or blown up/on fire- since they ignite themselves anyway) They are all plastic junk w/ a million stupid distracting screens for all the idiots on their phones anyway. Screw Tesla & Melon Husk
EV’s are a total joke/scam
GASOLINE FOREVER!
I am somewhat optimistic about EV adoption, so I’m going to say 35% of new cars in the US will be EVs in 2032. I am basing this on the many conversations I have had about EVs with non-car enthusiasts. I think we greatly overestimate how much of a sacrifice EVs are for a lot of drivers. Many people literally never take road trips, so range and charging times are not a major barrier (200-250 miles meets 100% of their driving needs). They are already driving a $50,000 ICE vehicle, so price isn’t an issue. For these drivers, the convenience of plugging in at home (no trips to the gas station) and no maintenance makes EVs more appealing than ICE vehicles.
The biggest barrier I see to EV adoption is a lack of knowledge. A lot of people I have talked to have unrealistic concerns. They think an EV will be as fragile as their cellphone (I had a guy express shock that my Livewire battery didn’t fail after I rode it in the rain) or they will have to spend thousands of dollars to buy home charging equipment. These buyers perceive EVs as much more of a sacrifice than they really are (at least for the driving they do; obviously, obviously this does not apply to everyone). Many of these people will consider an EV when they are no longer a novelty.
I personally like the Rivian R1S quite a bit, but it is well outside my price range. I do hope Rivian survives long-term so I don’t have to worry about them being orphaned when used prices get where I might consider picking one up.
Editor’s Note: I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the next great EV is a cheap one. I understand the realities of the Tesla Playbook by going upmarket first, but the market has moved on. The first automaker in the U.S. than can make a truly great, modern EV starting around $25,000-$30,000 will have a genuine hit on its hands. —PG
From your own Website
https://www.theautopian.com/fisker-dropped-a-29900-ev-crossover-a-pickup-and-a-four-door-convertible-yesterday-and-ill-be-damned-if-they-dont-look-pretty-good/
I guess we’ll see.
Absolutely false.
Firstly, they are the ‘best mass builder’ because they have all the lithium and the cheap labor. They are not building advanced batteries. They are not even near the cutting edge of technology. But they have all the raw materials and can control the export of them. China has a long and well documented history of just straight up lying about their capabilities. And propaganda. All the propaganda.
Secondly, China’s safety regulations consist of absolutely nothing. See also ‘Happy Grandpa’ “cars.” What, you think just because the Seagull looks more car-like it crash tests significantly better? Most of their small cars can’t be sold in markets with regulation because they wouldn’t even remotely pass. Because that’s how they get them small and cheap – tofu dregs.
Case in point, GM-SAIC continued to sell U-body minivans (dustbusters) in China well after they were pulled from regulated markets due to continually abysmal crash testing. Because China doesn’t care if a minor fender bender ends up in a leg amputation.
Thirdly, the populace doesn’t get a choice. Winnie the Pooh decides what the manufacturers get to make, and what consumers get to buy. Whether or not they’re okay with small cars is irrelevant. They love minivans, this is just fact. Why that is, you’d have to ask them. It just is. But it has been decreed that they can’t have them any more, even though a 7 passenger minivan is quite obviously more efficient than a 2 or 4 passenger (and zero cargo) micro.
Big oof.
These things happen, particularly in mass-manufactured electronics. And they’re always costly. Asus’ dumb asses (don’t buy Asus, for all the reasons) installed polarized capacitors backwards and destroyed CPUs. MLCC’s being damaged during manufacturing leading to short, the pick-and-place probably had an alignment error measured in fractions of a millimeter. That’s all it takes.
MLCCs are those really, really tiny brown surface mount components packed extremely closely together. Usually in arrays.
And this is absolutely one that needs to be taken extremely seriously. Transmission fluid is incredibly bad about fires. Just because it’s a combustible liquid doesn’t make it safe; shorted capacitors can reach the flashpoint temperature in a matter of seconds, in addition to providing a prompt ignition source. And cars have a whole lot of transmission fluid in them. See the problem?
This is one I’m definitely not going to prognosticate on because there’s just too many variables. Lithium supply, virtually certain trade conflicts, tariffs and dumping, economic conditions, symptoms of late-stage capitalism, etc. On the current track, the average new car price will be $70,000+ and the overwhelming majority of consumers won’t even be able to dream of affording one.
Well that’s it, this site is banned in China now.
Your social credit score has lost 300 points!
Oh bother.
Nah, they don’t have all the raw materials. Lots of places do. But China is the ones who’re willing to dig them up and process them. It’s cheaper there. Money talks.
“China’s safety regulations consist of absolutely nothing. See also ‘Happy Grandpa’ “cars.”
Yeah (if we don’t talk about motorcycles). But how about if I don’t want to pay for a car with features to save morons who don’t pay attention to their own driving? Anything from automatic TP monitors to automatic lane controls. I get those things are nice, but at what cost? (I wanna see a dollar amount here, not handwaving.) Frankly, a “Happy Grandpa” car would do me just fine, mostly I don’t need to drive over 30MPH or go more than 10 miles. I mean, it’s all sorta moot to me, I’ve got a ’15 Soul (salvage title due to hail dents) that I expect will last me the remainder of my driving career (theft, engine fires and GDI carbon aside). So those people who are moaning about >$20K cars (more than twice what I paid for mine) can go f*** themselves. I bought a new truck (Mazda B2200) once, it didn’t last any better than my used cars.
I think the R1T serves more of a conquest for Tesla owners that want something with more utility and/or different, rather than existing pickups. People that are jonesing for an electric truck don’t really want a midsize truck for full-size money just to get it and vice versa. A price premium may be expected, but not to that extent.
The R1S has more of a chance at conquests, but the price for an unknown brand may not help now that there are more electric crossovers out there.
After the articles saying just how many Model Ys have been registered, I started really paying attention to how many are running around, and I can’t say I’m surprised – for the price now, against a number of other cars or crossovers at that same price point, it does seem to hit a sweet spot of utility and usability that works for more people.
As I said in my OG comment…Rivians are vanity pieces for the conspicuous consumption/virtue signaling crowd. They’re at home in Whole Foods parking lots, not on job sites or trails. I doubt that the average R1T buyer has ever considered another truck or ever will consider another one after the Rivian.
Again, that’s not to say they’re bad cars. I personally think they’re neat and auto journos have been showering them with praise for years at this point so I assume they’re good vehicles. They’re just different.
“virtue signaling”
You lost me there, bub. I do see lot of them out in this redneck rural exurb, driven by locals and also pulling campers.
While I live in DC I spend a lot of time out in rural VA where my family owns property. I have yet to see a Rivian in any of those parts.
I don’t know if I would go so far as to call it a vanity piece, but I also don’t have an alternative term to use. Just that I don’t know how ‘extra’ it really is over most other EVs at the price point, even from more established brands. Maybe it’s just more obvious about it in that way since it is a truck. Or the insanity of them all hitting the online auction sites for crazy money.
The R1T would make an interesting lifestyle vehicle alternative to the target buyers of an Outback or Maverick or Santa Cruz, but it’s overengineered for that purpose. I get that it serves to show what an EV pickup is capable of, but that’s a battle that’s not hard for the domestic brands to also play in. Perhaps an R1T-lite (R1Tb? …R1GB?) would broaden that up in the way the 3/Y did for Tesla.
Vanity, sure, and conspicuous wealth, but they’ve been picked up by people here in Idaho who like to have pickups but wanted something different or electric. And I’m just glad to see them choosing Rivians instead of F350s that end up used as commuter cars. (And a bit envious, because I would like a Rivian, but just can’t justify 80k for one.)
This is a topic I’d be happy to be proven wrong on, and I agree that I’d rather these folks have EV trucks than super duty ICE nonsense they’ll never use the capability of.
TBF I see a lot of high-five, low-six figure non-Rivian leisure trucks around too. Whole Foods or Costco, doesn’t matter, it’s a work vehicle the price of a studio in Nebraska that has never seen mud.
For people who buy trucks to do truck things (a diminishingly small percentage of truck buyers, I know), the best electric truck is a plug-in hybrid, or at least something with a beefy gas range extender.
There are tons of tradespeople who’d love to roll up to a job site, unpack their tools, and power them off the truck battery. But if they can’t haul a trailer or even truck bed full of tools without murdering range with no way to replenish it (or top off the battery drained while at work), current EVs like the Lightning just mean paying more money for a truck that’s objectively worse than an ICE equivalent.
It’s possible to make a hybrid truck that’s better suited to being a truck than ICE. I don’t think the same can be said about a full EV, at least not yet…
Depending on the tradesperson, an EV can be great. Especially if you stay fairly local. Roll up to the job site and plug in to an outlet. Even 110 over the course of a day adds a lot of range.
I do agree that a range extender or PHEV is the ideal, though, and covers the most use cases. Plus, it doubles as a gas generator, as you point out for powering tools off the vehicle.
Color me shocked
wow, that is possibly the most unappealing angle of the Lucid up there in the lede.
People can’t afford new cars anymore, stuck buying used.
Rivian comes in cool colors and even offers a green interior.
We needs more Rex EV’s like the now-dead i3
I don’t think a single soul is cross shopping the R1T and the Lightning. The R1T is a fancy toy. A COOL one, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a vanity piece for the virtue signaling portion of the conspicuous consumption crowd. I only ever encounter them in hip/wealthy parts of town. The Lightning is meant to more or less be an electric work truck, and I actually see contractors in my area that have them.
Here in DC it makes perfect sense. They’re unlikely to need to travel distances that exceed the range and traffic/roads in this area are so horrendous that whatever you’re driving is going to get horrific fuel economy unless it’s electrified. Might as well save money on gas if you’re going to be moving around all day like a contractor does.
Anyway, as I’ve said all along the ultra wealthy are a finite resource and manufacturers have overplayed their hand in pandering to them. The rich are richer than ever in this new gilded age, but the vast majority of them aren’t buying fleets of cars. You also have to keep in mind that EVs that are pandered to them are only going to appeal to the limousine liberal types.
The conservative ultra wealthy crowd has less than 0 interest in them. Most of them would rather buy Raptors, TRXs, etc. GM tried to woo that crowd with the Hummer EV abomination and they’ve sold like 7 of them. I’ll also mention that folks that are insanely rich usually have a decent idea of what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on…and premium EVs are a horrific investment. All of this stuff is going to wind up as trade ins on established luxury brands in the next 3-4 years and will be sold for 30-40,000. They’re here and now products.
The market became oversaturated very quickly. The folks that are interested in the Lucids and Rivians of the world have already bought them at this point. The hype has died off and the reality of the sacrifices these vehicles require has set in. As the article suggests, EVs aren’t going to sell in significant volume again until regular people can afford them. That means the ones around $30,000. Not $60,000+, and especially not the six figure propositions.
There’s no way in hell 2/3rds of new car sales are EVs by 2032. They simply do not work for most people no matter what the EV stans tell you. They’re also not compelling products right now and they won’t be for several years unless you have a lot of money. For regular people there’s absolutely no reason to drop $50,000 on (insert EV here) over getting a similarly equipped ICE vehicle.
You’re throwing money away at that point. And, I’m not sure where this came from, but I see it cited everywhere: apparently you need to drive an EV for at least 60,000 miles before its carbon footprint becomes less than that of an ICE vehicle. Which means you’re taking horrific depreciation to the face because these products are giant cell phones that will be outdated in 2 years.
Then we’ll have another environmental problem on our hands. I could keep going but I’ll stop. This technology is not ready and forcing people into EVs is a dog and pony show/red meat to throw to the culture war crowd. It’s not going to make a significant difference environmentally yet, the products are more expensive and less useful, the list goes on.
Maybe I’m overthinking things, but over the last few weeks it’s really started to seem like the reality of this situation is setting in. Manufacturers can’t sell expensive EVs and most of the folks who are willing to put up with the compromises of being early adapters have already done so. Prices are getting slashed left and right. Lots are overflowing with them. Ridiculous lease deals are being announced. Etc.
I’m not anti EV either. I think it’s important that we continue to develop and improve the technology and I also think EVs are an important part of our future. But we’ve been missing the forest for the trees. I think the brakes need to be pumped, the shortsighted mandates need to be reconsidered, and that some focus needs to be redirected towards traditional and plug in hybrids. Those are what work right now, we can make several of them for the amount of battery resources that need to go into a single EV, and getting more people into them will drastically cut emissions.
What’s the old adage…something like don’t miss the good in pursuit of the perfect? We’ve been doing that.
I think that there’s plenty of cross shopping between any F150 Lightning that’s not the contractor spec and the R1T…
I have a friend who was one of the first in the country to take delivery of a Lightning, he had it a few weeks before his wife crashed it into a brick column holding up the canopy of a strip mall. Because no body shops were available it sat in his yard for ~ 6 months and once it did make it to the body shop it was totaled because the traction battery was dead. Talked to him last week and he said he was considering the Rivan in part because he said they were available with only a 2 week wait.
Meanwhile my son just ordered a Lightning and he had a number of reasons why he didn’t even consider a Rivian.
Also, on the used front, dealers are having a very hard time adapting to market prices returning to reasonable levels. I’m trying to get a Kona EV or Niro EV used, fully loaded, under the $25k mark so we can get the tax credit(which is itself a bit of a sketchy proposition since you have to be really careful to make sure the dealer submits the right paperwork). There’s a dealer that has several ‘20 Niro EVs that have been sitting on their lot for over 90 days. They are all listed right around $26k, like they have no clue about the tax credit. KBB is bonkers saying they are worth $35k, but with Carvana offering $17k to buy we know where things are going. I called and offered them $20k, I’ll buy today. Sales manager said nope, at $26k we’re already $3k underwater. They said they’ll keep holding out for someone. Maybe that person will walk in, but more likely they’ll send at least a couple of them to auction and my $20k would have looked at least a few thousand better. Well, they know what they got… the sales rep even said to me, yeah these are a really hard sell at $26k with the $13k in incentives you can get on a new $40k EV.
There are hundreds of Mach Es on lots near me and not a single one is discounted. It was the same way with the Ioniqs/EV6 for a long time too, although Hyundai/Kia has wised up and is now offering huge incentives on them and leases as low as $399 a month.
Going off of cars dot com, there are currently 3,342 BEVs listed for sale within 100 miles of my zip code. That’s absolutely nuts to me. They’re not selling at what dealerships are charging. The market has spoken and they’re going to have to adjust to it.
I looked into that “$399” a month lease, and neither of my local Hyundai dealers could figure out how to make that number happen using the terms from the Hyundai corporate website. The closest they could manage to get was $490 a month with the website terms. As usual, the Hyundai dealer experience lets the side down. They even made a newbie salesperson sit down with me and try the stupid foursquare and “if I can get it for X price, will you sign here saying you’ll buy it” nonsense.
As someone who has had entirely too much interaction with Hyundai dealerships, I believe it. I somehow found a good one during my search for an N but the majority of them were horrendous. At one the sales manager literally insulted me then mocked me as I was walking out the door after saying I’d buy their Elantra N at sticker but wouldn’t pay their 10% small print markup, and another tried to sell me an Elantra N that allegedly had 4 figured worth of “ceramic coating” on it.
I called them on their shit and said “if it cost that much to coat it show me the receipt” and they went radio silent. Eventually I found one that would sell me their Kona N at sticker/my wife put her foot down and said “if you’re going to get one you’re getting the crossover and not the sedan or weird 3 door thing” to which I said “works for me”…but the financing terms they offered me initially were awful.
I left after my initial look and drive even though the salesman tried all the usual nonsense, but it was the beginning of the month and I knew they’d post some promotions because back then they were trying to hold the N brand up. Eventually a special was listed that night that was $500 off and 2.75% APR financing. I took a screen shot, sent it to the salesman, and said make it happen.
It worked out in the end but it was such a goddamn hassle to get there, and who knows if it would’ve worked out with an Elantra N because that’s the one people really want. They wound up not being able to give the Konas away and Hyundai has already confirmed there won’t be a second gen.
“This technology is not ready and forcing people into EVs is a dog and pony show/red meat to throw to the culture war crowd.”
This is a great point. Trying to force mass adoption of EVs that are functionally inferior to ICE vehicles is a terrible strategy. It is frustrating that Brooklyn hipsters can’t seem to understand that some people live or have to drive in rural areas.
I think EVs have enough advantages that buyers will start to rationally choose them. The current crop of EVs does not have mass appeal, but market forces will eventually lead to EVs that buyers actually want. There is no sense creating animosity to EVs by forcing people to make sacrifices and acting like they should like it.
I can’t discount your points really but I’ll play devil’s advocate to the argument that the wealthy that want these already have them and no one else is in the market;
Last year it was relatively easy for someone with the means to buy a $100k car because borrowing the capital was relatively easy and free. Now you’re either looking at a 6% loan (best case) or manufacturer-subsidized loans (rarely available on the luxury segment). Wealthy people got that way because they’re usually good at managing said wealth. So now you can take any available capital and find a good, guaranteed 5% return rate somewhere. Save everything you can and pay cash for the car if you need to or wait if you don’t need a car right now. That’s what I think is really going on here more than anything.
The value prop on spending just isn’t there with rising rates and I think we’re going to see it in a lot of other segments of the economy. Just wait until this Christmas season and how nervous everyone is going to be when no one wants to spend like a nut job when their CC bill comes in at 27%.
Correct. I was more or less saying this in my comment, but you expanded on it nicely.
“What percentage of the U.S. auto market will EVs make up by 2032? I’m looking for a number here.”
BEVs only or are you also including PHEV, REX, HCV and regular hybrids?
Seeing the words “Tesla set to launch its Cybertruck pickup by year’s end” still cracks me up.
I went car shopping with my parents while visiting back east, and none of the dealers could keep sub $60k EVs on the lots. They were resorting to buying used at auction, but those were selling before they even arrived at the dealership. It’s interesting to see where the demand is and is not
Where on the east? In my part of NC, EVs seem to be sitting on lots from Mercedes to Hyundai or even Subaru, and in some cases make up the oldest vehicles in their inventories.
It was a week ago in New England. As I side note, IDK why you’d be surprised that the Subaru EV is sitting on a lot to be perfectly honest
Actually, I’ve been more surprised to see them at all, and I’ve seen two of them on the road, yet none of the Toyota twin despite half the number of area dealers. The closest Subaru dealers to me are paired with Hyundai, so there’s a lot of EV options on the lots – and they have plenty of the 5 and 6 Ioniqs in stock too.
Whether or not it’s the best EV is neither here nor there, manufacturers are making EVs of all different worths that are not selling at the moment. If anything, Subaru should have an easier time given the brand loyalty and the earthy, lovey image they’ve advertised for so long (despite mediocre hybrid attempts to date).
Was this a couple months ago? Things were still hot then. Now everything but the most sought after cars have been sitting(new or used) for quite a while.
One week ago. Went to a Ford dealer and a Hyundai dealer
I think sometimes it’s hyperlocal. If they extend their search to even 100 miles they’ll probably easily find something. The two closest Hyundai dealers to me have MANY sub-60k EVs in stock. I haven’t checked Ford but other EVs I’ve looked at tracked. Now used, for some reason there are better deals to be had is SoCal, not sure why.
For the well-to-do suburbanites in large metropolitan areas, EV adoption rates might reach 30% by 2032. For the rest of Americans, maybe 5%.
My opinion: EVs will never be higher than about 15-20% of sales unless and until a paradigm shift in cost or battery capacity occurs.
It really doesn’t matter what you, an internet commenter, thinks car buyers actually “need” or “can get by with”, or how indignant you get that people might have other priorities than you. The fact is there’s a limited market of people who can and are willing to 1) accept an EVs limitations and 2) afford the price. Many of those people own EVs already.
Most people don’t want to buy a car for 95% of their use cases, or to compromise on something that they don’t have to for noble reasons. Most people don’t sacrifice quality of life or go green to save the earth, they go green once an equivalent or better product saves them money (LED bulbs, smart thermostats, etc). Make a compromise-free EV, and people will buy it.
My problem is that I do not trust the US electric system to be able to deal with the requirements of a sizable electric car population. Maybe I’d be interested if someone will sell me a cheap little EV combined with a solar panel-and-battery installation so that I can charge at home. But yep, the early adopter market is saturated and the next step will not be easy here.
Note that this is not just me pulling numbers from my ass, the government admits as much in its annual energy reports.
Reference case is sub 20% market share (including PHEVs) by 2050, not 2032. Even the “High oil price” case tops us out at under 30% share.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
There is no such thing as a compromise-free EV, or a compromise-free ICE. What people need to do is become more educated on what specific compromises they can live with or without. Should most suburban families have 2 SUV/crossovers in a driveway? Probably not, but in most families each person has their own car, and they don’t want to possibly not be prepared for one hypothetical event. The major issue I see is that new EVs do not offer a cheaper price than ICE equivalents, and that makes an issue like range anxiety seem more daunting that it is. They key to more EV adoption right now are used EVs getting in the hands of new adopters, as these are lower in price people are willing to make more compromises and accept and work around the limitations it presents.
Your post is exactly the strategy that will not work, at least these parts:
Setting aside any personal opinions on the matter for a second, can you name me some examples of times where a significant number of people have been shamed into giving up something they value for the greater good? It doesn’t generally happen. The answer is making EVs compromise-free vs ICEs on the individual level. Failing that, it’s going to require government coercion, which also rarely goes well.
I didn’t say anything about shaming people, what they need to learn and be educated about is the compromises of EVs aren’t that terrible. IMO one of the biggest compromises in new EVs is the tablet like dashboard and the learning curve of figuring out touch screens for new adopters, as well as a price point for comparable ICE. If automakers focused more on turning ICE cars into EVs, instead of re-inventing the interior controls on every new EV to minimize everything they could find more people willing to trade stops at the gas pump for charging over night at home.
Questioning whether people should have two SUVs in the driveway (and implying that they shouldn’t) certainly seems like shaming to me.
I also think the idea that people will see the light on EVs with more education, or are being held back from switching by interior controls, is pretty unlikely. The overwhelming answer in surveys to why people don’t buy an EV is range anxiety. Modern EVs have been on sale for over a decade now. Most people probably know someone who owns one. Their tradeoffs are not a mystery or a matter of education.
That’s where the question of needing two ICE SUVs in the driveway of the suburbs come into play. Does every family need 2 vehicles that can carry 5+ people and a weeks worth of luggage all 3000 miles across the country with only 15 minute stops every 300-500 miles, or do they only need 1 vehicle like that, and possibly another that could have a lower range, because only 1 time in the past 10 years they drove over 200 miles in a day in that car. This is where educating people, and maybe not making it feel like such a drastic change inside the vehicle will help EV adoption.
All I’m saying is the same conservation/downsize mindset that you’re advocating for has been tried before and has pretty much never worked on a large scale.
-We don’t keep our houses at 65 in the winter and wear sweaters.
-We don’t all drive Corollas or Priuses everywhere instead of trucks
-We don’t eat chicken or veggies instead of beef
-We don’t buy local, buy long-lasting stuff, or reuse things vs. buying disposable junk from China.
Regardless of how rational it may seem (all the ideas above are rational, save money, and reduce emissions as well), going from 2 “do-it-all” vehicles to 1 feels like a sacrifice. Based on only that fact, and American history, I’m confident in saying people won’t do it willingly no matter how much education you give them.
It may feel like a sacrifice to go from 2 do it all to 1, but in reality it’s not, and done properly the cost savings negate any sacrifice. Also pretty much all new EVs are crossovers, so size and space isn’t a compromise, only distance is.
If a families second car did an average of 17,000 miles a year only mon-fri for work that’s an average of 67.5 miles a day. Charging at home every night even on a level 1 charger should work amazingly for most consumers. Some may want to get a level 2 at an additional ~$500 investment and never have to worry about changing times. This is where educating people is important because most people don’t math well, and everyone thinks range anxiety is a real issue on 230+ mile range EVs.
You’re beating a dead horse at this point, fuckin’ moron
Needing and wanting are 2 different things. People WANT 2 SUV’s, they don’t need them.
And they can still have 2 SUVs, the smart thing would be for one to be an EV.
Those are the good options. The nightmare scenario, which is Option #3: Fossil fuels become unfeasible for other reasons, and we’re caught flat-footed with no backup plan.
Every year, climate change gets a little worse, more people lose their homes or livelihoods or access to food and water. People are vindictive creatures and tend to take this sort of thing personally. Every year they demand climate response with less carrot and more stick. If nothing is done, it is a matter of time until this political will boils over. We will see fossil fuel bans, “you break it you buy it” style taxes that make fossil fuel unprofitable, or even illegal action that makes fossil fuel infrastructure impossible to safely maintain.
As they say, the grapes of wrath are growing heavy for the vintage.
Now, you and I both know the consequences of switching off the oil and gas drills today would be that the nation gets set back (technologically and economically) by 100 years. We have so much dependency on fossil fuels, and the substitutes are still immature not built at sufficient scale. But people with less and less to lose aren’t thinking about that. After all, Option #4 is to cook the planet, and nobody pays for fuel after an apocalypse. Either way, fossil fuel has a deadline, and it’s not one we’ll get to negotiate.
If you want to avoid Options #3 or #4, you double down on investments in carbon-neutral tech and hope that Options #1 and #2 (cost and performance) kick in before it’s too late. This is what the government is doing by throwing around incentives and placing aggressive (read: probably impossible) targets, and that’s why they don’t care that EV tech is compromised from a consumer perspective.
I think the apocalyptic rhetoric doesn’t really serve us too well, because it ignores progress already made (look at power generation and renewables) and implies the uselessness of further efforts (completely untrue). Even with changes already in place, the 4+ degree nightmare scenarios are basically off the table, and even 3 degrees is above the worst case.
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
Surely there’s further improvements to be made, but the idea that society is going to break down if EV mandates aren’t aggressive enough seems a bit far-fetched to me. There’s still plenty of places to cut emissions that don’t affect consumer quality of life.
I never implied that our efforts are useless, nor that the situation was hopeless, only that if we slack off on our commitments, we will face the sorts of consequences that cannot be solved with money.
While it’s true that there have been major strides in the US grid (40% CO2 reduction from 2005-2021, wind doubled and solar quadrupled from 2015-2021, so there’s genuine possibility of net-zero by the late 2040s), electricity is currently the only sector that’s “on track.” 77% of US emissions reduction comes from electric power generation alone. Other sectors have largely stagnated.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58860
Transportation is the single largest sector for US emissions, and the majority of that is from personal vehicles. This only gets worse when considering the ~21% upstream emissions of liquid fuels — about a quarter of industrial emissions are from the process of refining oil for vehicular fuel. Basically, transport is the long pole in the tent, and for precisely the reasons you mentioned — EVs and other alternative vehicles just aren’t a slam dunk for most people.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58861
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1875764
It is extremely important to understand that we are not currently on track. The target was never 4°C, it is 2°C maximum. This number wasn’t pulled out of nowhere. Most plans target 1.5°C or a high probability of remaining below 2°C, because 2°C is a tipping point above which certain positive feedback loops such as ice-albedo and oceanic methane could make the problem swiftly spiral out of control. Additionally, the difference between 1.5°C and 2.5°C is about a 15% reduction in global productivity of staple crops (note: this number changes a lot between studies and I can’t tell you which is best), and I won’t beat a dead horse on the incremental effects of water shortages, hurricane destruction, or mass migration away from the equator.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12877/chapter/3#8
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/climate-system/feedback-loops-tipping-points
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/climate-impacts-midwest-crop-yields.pdf
All of this is so I can say this: we’re tantalizingly close to having climate change under control, but any one industry or sector that gets left behind jeapordizes the whole operation. To quote the UN secretary general, “Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”
Your downplaying of climate change effects (and that of most people who are doing the same thing) is based on the assumption of their progression being linear, while in fact there’s a much higher probability of it being exponential.
Very much this. By the time I’m elderly, the film “Soylent Green” could prove itself to be prophesy.
However, wealth/income distribution is so thoroughly skewed that the wealthiest among us account for a disproportionate share of the emissions, and most of the rest of the population is so cash-strapped that they can’t afford the costs of entry to living a lifestyle less impactful on the environment even in cases where it will allow them to save money, which is a consequence of this skewed wealth distribution and a civilization run by people that seek to drive everyone into debt for their own personal profit. Climate change is every bit as much a social justice issue and wealth disparity issue as it is an environmental issue.
> There’s still plenty of places to cut emissions that don’t affect consumer quality of life.
A big chunk of the country is eager to increase emissions AND make their quality of life WORSE because wind and solar are for big government pervert groomers with pronouns. So instead we privatize the grid and let market forces make sure people die in the cold and in the heat, or have to sell the car to cover the electricity bill.
When you’re dealing with that sort of completely irrational behavior, i don’t have much hope cutting emissions will happen.
People can’t afford luxury EV’s? pikachushockedface.png
A bigger issue is the children can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps because they all wear sneakers, sandals and flip-flops which don’t have them.