It sometimes feels like we’re entering the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ phase when it comes to the non-hybrid EV market. There has been a lot of bad news lately and the market has softened a lot. I look at it the other way, and see that EVs were victim of a somewhat opposite effect: the hard bias of high expectations. Yes, EV sales dropped this quarter, and politics is partially to blame, but prospects aren’t all that terrible.
The rest of The Morning Dump will be consumed by some familiar topics. Stellantis sales for the whole globe were reported today and the company’s sales are increasing, thanks mostly to America. Time continues to be a flat circle as UAW President Shawn Fain is reportedly under the eye of the DOJ over claims he used his position to help out his family.
Volkswagen’s plans to cut jobs cratered due to labor, which has claimed a lack of trust in the current CEO and helped to kill his massive plans.
It’s Hard To Know What The EV Market Should Look Like
There are two ways to look at this graph of year-over-year changes in EV sales volume from Cox Automotive. If you’re an EV pessimist, you see a quickly declining graph of acceptance that shows people do not want electric cars. If you’re an EV optimist, you see the evil work of the government interfering in the market (or, well, stopping its interference in the market).
I disagree with both views, which is easy to do since they are rhetorical devices I invented myself for the purpose of having something to disagree with, though I believe they are generally valid. What’s interesting to me here is that year-over-year sales briefly peaked before the Inflation Reduction Act went into effect in Q3 2022 and have never quite recovered.
This was one of the moments for me when my doubts that we’d see a 50% EV market by 2030 were solidified. Quarterly sales graphs sometimes hide what this sales momentum chart show. The reality is, with the EVs that we were given, sales momentum was always going to continue to drop. In a way, the Inflation Reduction Act could be viewed as a massive pulling-forward of EV sales for some who were interested. Given how automakers were also subsidizing EV development through massive losses, there’s also a large amount (especially with leases) of on-the-fence buyers opting for great deals.
Sales growth was down 20.5% year-over-year, but that’s an improvement over the last three quarters. Because of the sugar rush of sales before the IRA expired in Q3 2025 I suspect that this trend will reverse itself and we’ll see a huge drop in Q3 2026, before a recovery in Q4.
Without the push-and-pull of the IRA, there probably would have been a large leveling off, but that still would have meant growth. My rough guess is that roughly 10% of the current US car market would be fine with an EV today, if only automakers offered enough good affordable EVs. Last quarter we were at about 5.8%.
That isn’t great, and I think this means there’s probably growth to be had here:
New product launches, state-level incentive programs, and continued consumer interest are helping support demand. While the market is smaller than it was, Cox Automotive continues to believe the long-term trajectory for EV adoption remains positive. As Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of Industry Insights at Cox Automotive notes, “The next phase of EV growth will likely be driven not only by advances in the technology itself, but by how effectively automakers translate those advances into products that meet consumer expectations for affordability, utility, performance, and ownership experience.”
This is where products like the upcoming Ford Ranchero will be interesting to watch.
Stellantis Caring About The United States Is Starting To Pay Off
I finally saw a new Pacifica with the redesigned nose and, you know what, it looks good. I like it. This has always been an attractive, functional van and I enjoy the changes. I’m looking forward to driving it at some point in the future. I’d say the same for the current Ram 1500, which also carries over the brand’s longstanding aesthetic.
Buyers in America agree, and thanks to Ram and Chrysler, Stellantis saw a 38% year-over-year improvement in sales. That’s by far the greatest increase for any region, as Stellantis overall saw only a 5% rise in Europe, no change Asia (where it’s barely a player), and losses in both South America and the Middle East/Africa.
From the company:
The majority of the growth was driven by new or refreshed products and powertrain offerings, including the Ram 1500 (light-duty) HEMI® V8, the new Ram 1500 TRX SRT, the refreshed Jeep® Grand Wagoneer and Grand Cherokee, and the refreshed Chrysler Pacifica, in addition to the continued ramp-up of the all-new Jeep® Cherokee and the all-new Dodge Charger 2-door and 4-door SIXPACK; it also reflects preparations for the planned summer production shutdown.
The company seems to be telegraphing a potential period of slower growth in Q3 as production shifts, so we’ll see.
UAW’s Shawn Fain Under DOJ Investigation
United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain came in with a pledge to restore the union to greatness after a long period of unrest and, notably, so many legal issues that the court appointed a federal monitor (under the Biden Administration). While the UAW has experienced enormous success in negotiations, that monitor has consistently alleged that Fain has flouted rules and used his position to punish foes and aid his family members.
Now, per the Detroit Free Press, the Department of Justice is investigating Fain. While the claims appear consistent with what the monitor found, Fain says he’s being targeted ahead of a union election:
“We are going to fight back hard,” he said in a statement July 12.
Fain also decried the investigation, blaming current UAW Vice President Rich Boyer for attempting to undermine Fain’s credibility before the two face off soon in a six-way race for the UAW presidency. Boyer, who has feuded with Fain since 2024, has long claimed Fain disciplined him after he objected to Fain trying to influence him over bonuses at the fiancee’s place of work.
The news of the investigation comes about two weeks after the monitor overseeing the union for the federal government published a scathing report in federal court, alleging that Fain did, indeed, retaliate unfairly against Boyer in 2024. At that time, Fain stripped Boyer of his duty overseeing the Stellantis Department — the sector of the union with about 40,000 members who work for the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram family of companies.
Whatever you believe, it’s messy as hell.
VW CEO Takes It On The Chin
Friday was all about Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume’s big package to save the company. That was swiftly rejected, and the reason was that VW’s labor union has a lot of votes on the board and they’re not… on board.
Labor officials wrote to the company’s employees blaming management for stoking fear over job losses and demanding Blume and his team respond by Friday to more than 80 questions to explain their restructuring plan.
After he failed to comply, the works council distributed a special edition of its newspaper to the workforce on Saturday saying Blume will have to answer directly to staff at meetings to be held after the summer break.
There has already been “a massive loss of trust” in Blume, who had portrayed himself when he took charge as someone who wanted to do the job “for the people,” the council wrote.
I generally like the German model of having labor and management work together as, often, it avoids the kind of us-vs-them mentality you get in the United States. The division in a company like VW is a lot more complex, as it’s: large shareholding family v. the government of Lower Saxony v. labor v. management.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I somehow missed that Japanese Breakfast’s song “Men in Bars” features Jeff Bridges. Yes, that Jeff Bridges.
The Big Question
What % of the new car market in the United States, in a vacuum, do you think should be electric cars?
Top photo: Cox Automotive/Cadillac
To answer TBQ with utmost accuracy, 100%. Because ICE vehicles wouldn’t function in a vacuum. I’m not sure what the point would be as we’d all be dead, but you’d be better off with an electric vehicle.
Dammit!
On the plus side, maybe tacked on touchscreens are a better UX for pulverized red mist. You never have to take your eyes off the road because you simply don’t have them. Or anything else.
But wouldn’t the liquid crystal in those liquid crystal displays boil off in a vacuum? Another win for physical buttons.
If that were to suddenly happen Jason has a great article on getting the Lunar rover functional https://www.theautopian.com/heres-the-minimum-it-would-take-to-get-the-lunar-rovers-running-again-when-we-get-back-to-the-moon/
Just go off-track from the “Whalers of the Sea of Tranquility” ride.
Is that the full name of the ride? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve missed that and thought the Whalers on the Moon was just a non-sequitur
How did I miss this when first published?
So what’s the speed of a light electric vehicle in a vacuum? Never mind, they’re all heavy.
Technically correct. The best kind of correct.
You could do cool stuff with hydrogen peroxide as a fuel. That does not need oxygen. Unfortunately, it would not stay cool for long without an atmosphere for the cooling system.
But then the same would be true for cooling an electric vehicle.
As long as they carry supplemental oxygen tanks, I don’t see the problem
In a vacuum 100%, since all combustion engines rely on oxygen in the atmosphere to operate. We actually don’t have to guess at this – if we look at other (non-US) celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars which lack oxygenated atmospheres, we indeed see 100% electrification.
I really opened myself up to this one.
A vacuum will do that to ya
But a lot of them are EREVs, recharging from onboard nuclear power stations.
brb starting a debate on the ontological difference between this and driving a BEV in a location where nuclear power makes up a major component of the electrical grid.
Well, we don’t make the distinction necessarily where any EV charger gets its electrons. So the difference is whether the power generated is on-board the vehicle or not. Gas generator going to a fixed charger going to vehicle is a BEV. Gas generator onboard charging the onboard battery, EREV. So your point still stands, that all extra-terrestrial wheeled vehicles are EVs.
RE: EV sales in the US.
Is it me or do people not react to high gas prices anymore? When I was a kid growing up in the late 70’s-80’s and early 90’s every time there was a recession or gas prices went up what people drove changed. A lot of people drove small econo cars. I just randomly looked and the best selling vehicles in the US in 1985 was the Chevy Celebrity, Ford Escort, and Chevy Cavalier. When I later moved to California in the late 90’s and when the recessions and gas shocks came in the early 2000’s the used car lots were FULL of cheap full sized trucks.
But now? Right now, as in June of 2026 the best selling vehicles in the US are Ford F-150’s, Chevy Silverados, GMC Sierras, Ram trucks and Honda CR-V’s for some reason. In other words, unlike all of the other times in US history where people reacted to high gas prices by buying more fuel efficient cars they’re STILL buying these YUGE things, apparently super happy to pay $5-6 a gallon to run them too.
WTF happened? Are people just happy to stay in debt indefinitely?
Well, I think one of the things that happened is that there are so many fewer visibly smaller actual cars to distinguish from the mass of large, blobby crossovers and crew cab pickups.
Also, people are locked into longer-term loans for larger amounts of money, so they can’t pivot as quickly.
Also also, marketing has convinced people that they need the 100% solution 100% of the time, so they are less willing to just get “an car” that is cheap and basic and efficient, but can’t carry 7 people, a dog, and a month’s worth of luggage while towing a boat for the one time in their life where that situation occurs.
Also x3, there just aren’t as many people with the readies to just buy a used car (which aren’t available in the quantities for cheap as they used to be) to deal with a sudden surge in gas prices.
Also^4 I think that pay at the pump using a credit card has somewhat divorced the reality of high gas prices from when you had to lay down actual folding cash on the counter.
On that fourth point, I have made 99% of my “cash” transactions using a debit card, so it still feels like spending money.
How does spending money on a Debit car feel more like spending money than spending it on a credit card?
I do both. Restaurant spending on a PayPal debit card to get the 5% cash back. Gas on the Costco card to get 5% cash back. The rest on the GM card to get 3% cash back.
I also churn a few cards each year to get the signing bonus. Many cards will pay $500 to $800 for signing up and doing a minimum spend.
I meant it feels as much like spending money as using cash.
How? Both are tapping or swiping a card.
They feel the same to me.
Relatively speaking, gas isn’t as expensive as back then, and even “inefficient” gasoline cars are NOWHERE near as inefficient as the gas guzzling monsters of the ’70s. My old man went from driving a big-ass Chrysler wagon that got 12mpg on a good day to one of the “new redesigned ” 1980 Subaru hatchbacks that got 40mpg. Today that would take going from a 20mpg pickup to an 70mpg car – but that Subaru was cheap ($4300, $19K today). It also had 65hp, no A/C, manual everything including brakes and steering, an AM radio, and the crash safety of a wet cardboard box. And even then, he only bought a new car because the Chrysler would no longer pass inspection due to rust. Back then, used cars were a terrible bet. People just aren’t willing to drive that sort of thing today.
I think people have also gotten used to the fact that these gas price spikes are temporary. This is simply not the new normal. And the current one is self-inflicted by our Idiot-in-Chief.
What happened is:
1) Median income is higher, even inflation adjusted. No one here likes it when I say this, but the typical person lives better than their parents, and that is even more true for the types of people buying a $60K truck.
2) Large vehicles get much better fuel economy than before, so small economy cars aren’t as necessary to save money. My parents have a Grand Highlander Hybrid that seats 7 adults, but gets 33 mpg. Full size trucks can get 20, not 11 as they used to.
It’s a rare person who actively wants a small car; most who buy them feel compelled to. Nowadays that’s less necessary.
I think its less to do with higher median incomes and the level of debt both banks are willing to stomach and consumers willing to get into it. Right now the average debt of the typical American household is over $150,000. A lot of that is related to credit cards, auto loans, and other stuff they’re on the hook for. That works out to a phenomenal 20 Trillion dollars of debt for the entire country. To put that into perspective the entire US economy is worth around 30 trillion. So think about that for just a second. That is insane. And its so far removed from any resemblance of fiscal responsibility.
And we are partially like this because nobody every paid the price for the last few recessions. The government bailed it all out every single time, printed money, and now we as a country are some 40 Trillion in debt. The recessions were never really allowed to run their courses, which is a good thing in general as it cuts the chaff and snaps people back into reality.
So now we have a whole country filled with people having grown up and existed in a country that has put itself into an insane amount of debt so it can both pay off the irresponsible debt and financial decisions the average American makes-whether its in buying overpriced McMansions or jacked-up Silverados getting maaaaayyybbeeee 17 MPG at $6 a gallon.
You and I have an insurmountably different understanding of the economy I think.
Household debt to GDP suggests consumers owe less as a portion of the economy than any point in the last 20 years:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N
Household debt as a percentage of income is similarly low:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
There are worrying signs with the national debt. Budgets have become untethered from reality and neither party seems willing to address it seriously. That is not the same as consumers feeling confident enough to buy a $60,000 truck and pay $4 a gallon to refuel it.
Nah. I think I explained it pretty well and one fed person from St Louis ain’t changing that reality. People are simply in way more debt, are more comfortable with debt, and as a result will never retire. But that’s another subject all together
https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc
Three quick questions regarding that data:
-Is a dollar in 2004 worth the same as one now?
-Is the number of households in the US the same in 2004 and now?
-Given the obvious answers to the above, would “total nominal debt across all households” have any real meaning at all?
I was kind of busy today so I stepped away from this thread. But I think a lot of people gave you the answers that you were trying to get from me. I’ve lived all over the country. I understand economics quite well and I’ve seen what happens over the decades and how things are absolutely way way more expensive than they ever were decades ago and that is when you put inflation as well as rise in incomes. Either way, I think that’s part of the problem. When your average room temperature person thinks things are all hunky-dory when their own government as well as the corporate interests that currently control it are out there fucking them over
Nope, he’s right. America is richer than ever before and richer than the vast majority of the world. Everything feels expensive because we’re buying higher quality food, housing, and transportation than are available pretty much anywhere else on Earth.
This sounds like something someone who never goes anywhere else would say. We objectively do NOT have better food, education or healthcare than a LOT of the rest of the world. Freaking Mexico kicks our asses on basic things like those, AND they have more EVs because they aren’t scared of competition.
Our country is good at one thing, and that’s blowing stuff up. Though it appears we aren’t even that great at that.
I have no problem for a little bit less richness (was going to write wealth but that is debatable) for my welfare state and universal healthcare.
I would too!
Nah, I think Europe has closer to the correct tradeoffs than we do, but it’s as close to an objective truth as you’re going to get that the American consumer has an incredible amount of power. I don’t really like what most of our neighbors do with that, but they do.
I’ve lived in Europe. Yeah, if you are poor, you are certainly better off there than in the US. Upper middle class and above (which is a LOT of Americans, but seemingly not a lot of Autopians) you are better off here in the US. Would I give up some disposable income to have a European-style social safety net – sure, in theory. But I am not so sure I would give up my standard of living for it.
Our military is stupendous at winning battles. Our politicians are equally stupendous at losing wars. And recently, starting them for the most idiotic of reasons. Be careful who you vote for.
Poor people are not better off anywhere. And upper middle class people are fine everywhere. We seem to be dead-set on making as many people poor as possible by getting rid of anything other than rich.
We haven’t properly declared war since WW2 and I question if we’ve won any “skirmish” since. My (late) Dad didn’t seem to think we won in Korea and my brother sure doesn’t think Iran or Afghanistan were worth much. They were soldiers, btw. I skipped that part of my life.
Sure the poor are better off elsewhere. You can be poor and secure in much of western Europe(and even some of eastern Europe today – that whole social safety net thing means you will almost certainly have a roof over your head, enough to eat, if not particularly exciting food, and if you get sick it’s not a dire financial problem. None of those things are necessarily a given in the US (especially if you live in a “red” state).
But there are far more upper-middle class people in the US than in much of the rest of the world as a percentage of the populaton. Actual middle-class (as opposed to the working poor), have it about the same on either side of the pond. More security over there, more disposable income and a generally higher standard of living over here – pick your poison. Most people actually don’t get horrendously sick or ever need much of that social safety net.
We have bigger houses and cars because we have a shitload of space compared to most rich countries. I don’t know how high you need to be to think we have better food…
We don’t have, like, better-balanced diets. But we have more luxurious food, for sure.
Not sure what “luxurious” means to you, in terms of food. Lots of it? When it comes to quality, it is bottom rung for developed countries.
Sorry, lived in Europe, and have been to most of the EU countries. There isn’t much in it for food quality IMHO. But I am by no means a “foodie”.
The quality and taste of a simple vegetable is night and day. American strawberries taste like red dust. Standard butter in Europe is imported and sold for three times the cost here (and no, that’s not snobbery, it is taste and water content). The amount of additives and poisons that exist in American foods is staggering. Animals are pumped full of hormones to grow fast, which is a big part of the obesity problem. American flour has much higher gluten levels and also added glyphosate and potassium bromate. There is simply no comparing basic food quality.
Whatever dude. You can buy the same stuff here if you want to. And you can buy shit over there if you want to as well. They ban some ingredients we allow, we ban some ingredients they allow, it all works out in the wash.
You can eat at any standard you want in the US.
Yes, this is what I mean. Any medium sized city in the USA has an absolute cornucopia of cuisines from all over the globe, at nearly any price point. I can drive three miles to a grocery store with a bunch of normal vegetables plus flown-in tropical delicacies that I have to Google how to eat – and that’s where the poor people shop!
Exactly. I’ve lived in *London* and had no better selection of food than I have in my suburban area of SW FL – and it was rather more expensive. Out in the countryside, good luck. Just within a mile or two of my house I have multiple Chinese restaurants, American (of course), BBQ, Thai, Peruvian, seafood, Indian, Mexican galore, Polish, Caribbean, Soul Food and more I am forgetting. And I can buy the ingredients to make absolutely ANY of those cuisines at home if I want to. And like you say, every exotic fruit you can import to the US. And this is an hour from a medium-small city, and two hours from a “major” city. Make the drive and have even MORE choices. My summer haunt of Portland, ME is even MORE diverse and a bit of a foodie paradise these days.
You can choose to eat like a king in the US, or you can choose to eat utter crap – but it’s a choice you get to make.
1. Real income has come up about 35% while real cost have risen around 70% since 1985. It’s a known fact that we’re in the first period of American history where young people are living worse off than their parents. The average American is priced out of a new car, so only the rich can buy them. This is reflected on the rising average age of the American car, the rising average age of the new car buyer and the rising average purchase cost.
2. Yes, but small cars have also gotten better. A car car can make between 40 and 50 mpg. There’s just less of them since manufacturers have been incentivized to produce crossovers.
What do you think “real” means in this context?
Adjusted for inflation and accounting for all explicit costs (gas, gallon of milk, etc) and implicit costs (changing preferences, tech, manufacturing shifting, etc). On the costs side. For income, similar deal, capturing the wage numbers for explicit and accounting for shifting job make up, benefits packages and so on for implicit.
Right, my point is that higher costs since 1985 are already accounted for in real income. The average household has 35% more purchasing power, to use your figure.
Yes. Which doesn’t account for the massive spikes in cost of living over the same period. 35% increased income, not spending power, does not make up the 70% real cost of living increase. Costs have risen faster than income increases. Even the basics like shelter. The average house to income ratio has gone from 3.5 to 5.0 since 1985. Median rent, adjusted for inflation, has doubled in that period. So a 35% increase in income does not cover the almost doubling of housing much less all the other costs.
Real income accounts for those housing (and other) cost increases and I don’t know how much more clearly I can state that.
There are dozens of us who recognize this. Dozens of us!
Maybe not, like, on this website. But in the country.
You could try harder, for one. I guess you are on the younger side? All of my kids are into their mid 20s or older, graduated college, and have good jobs. The only way they were able to afford houses was because my mother left them money when she passed away. In their age group, they are the few who don’t rent.
I don’t know what Trumpistan version of the world you live in, but the cost of living vs. income is most certainly not better than it used to be.
I don’t know why I bother replying, but words like “real income” have simple and clear definitions, the relevant data are tracked by non-partisan government agencies, for example right here:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
and using a vibes-based narrative to doom and gloom in spite of facts bothers me, maybe more than it should.
You can check my comment history, I’ve been here making the same points about this topic no matter which party controls the government.
I don’t know why you bother, either. If you earn 20% more but things cost 30% more, you haven’t “increased” your buying power.
Due to the insane load times here if you are logged in, I seldom do. I’ll not research your post history just to confirm that you don’t understand the economic reality of the country.
Tell me how many HS kids you know who can afford a Mustang GT slinging pizza after school. Or how many graduating seniors come out college with zero student loan debt.
Whatever reality you think you are revealing with your links is simply not what the majority of the country is experiencing.
Insane that such a simple definition can be so poorly understood.
Last thing I’m going to say is that this vibes-based understanding of the economy and cost of living (in spite of how good we collectively have it as a country) is how we ended up with the president that you (and I) despise. It’s why I care about this stuff. You don’t need to believe else anything I say, but dwell on that for a bit.
I don’t have to “believe” anything you post because I can see what is actually going on and travel to other countries.
We got this stupid stain on the country because your average US “American” is too god-damned stupid to understand that what is making them poorer is not other poor people, and that giving more money to rich people does not, will not, and never has helped them in any way.
All that great food that we have access to has somehow decreased our life expectancy, increased our obesity and become more expensive than ever.
I could throw up some graphs, but apparently everything is great according to FRED.
I’m getting out of here now.
Life expectancy in the US has largely decreased because of all the idiocy around covid and vaccines. And because poor people avoid seeking medical care in general in the US.
There is no shortage of fat people in Europe once you get out in the countryside.
As V10omous says – words have meanings.
Real income means income that has been adjusted be inflation. Inflation is by definition the increased cost of living.
If you look at median household wages in 1985 and 2024 and adjust them for the the inflation over that period of time the data says that income increased 35% more than prices.
That does not mean that everyone is doing better but the average family is.
Because of things like this. The longtime American benchmark has been buy a home. Realistic or not. I’m 30. I have a good job that cannot be remote, but in HCOL area. I will not be able to afford a house around here by myself for probably another 10 years.
My parents met because they were neighbors, in their early-mid 30’s who owned houses next to eachother, albeit they were multifamilies and renting out the 2nd unit.
Housing prices got out of whack with years of low rates sure, but prices cant be lowered without putting a good chunk of people underwater.
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/map-earn-income-home-purchase-every-state/
https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/housing-market-income-needed-purchase-typical-home
Btw these two on buyer ages have some disagreement, due to methodology. But both show an increase
https://www.redfin.com/news/median-homebuying-age-2025/
https://www.nar.realtor/press-releases/first-time-home-buyer-share-falls-to-historic-low-of-21-median-age-rises-to-40
So bluntly put – move. The best financial move of my life was leaving the extremely expensive Northeast for a much lower cost of living area. Pay for a given job doesn’t vary anything like as much as cost of living does. SOME parts of the country have become wildly expensive – but many parts have not.
I get that it’s “hard” to pull up stakes and make a better life for yourself elsewhere. But I also don’t have much sympathy for those unwilling to do it for “reasons”. IMHO, you don’t get to bitch about it. If you have a job that is tied to a particular geographic area (Hollywood, or Wall Street, or whatever), then that’s a choice you made that you will have to live with.
I studied a pretty niche engineering subject, got a masters and everything. Took a while to find a job that actually applied it. Options are basically Salt lake, where i am, Alabama or getting into NASA, which isnt the most stable right now.
I pulled up stakes to get here. and have worked my ass off to pay back student loans. Dont have any grandparents left to help for a down payment either.
Like I said, if you are in a field where there are limited options for a job, well, that’s a choice you made that you get to live with.
I have an accounting degree and a law degree, though I have spent 30 years in IT. I can find a job absolutely anywhere.
I am going to bet you make a hell of a lot more than the $35K/yr I made when I bought my first dump of a house. And I too had HUGE student loans for the day from a combined eight years of school. I did luck out in that I was able to consolidate my loans before Congress jacked interest rates through the roof. Still took 20 years to pay them off.
I’m pushing 60, and absolutely NONE of my cohort were doing anything but renting in our 20s, and in most cases, well into our 30s. 20-somethings buying houses has been mostly a fantasy for a long, long time. I bought my first house at 31, the first in my circle. It was 5X my annual income, despite being one of the cheapest houses in the area, and I was only able to buy it because my grandparents helped me out with the down-payment. AND I had roommates in that house. Still do actually.
The only difference between now and 30 years ago is the kids have a much better platform to complain about how terrible thier lives are than we did. We just got to work.
If you’re pushing 60, then you were looking to buy a house well after the Civil Rights Act ended apartheid in the US. The ‘everything was golden’ loons are talking about how great it was for white men when they had a black underclass to exploit. It’s just a white supremacist propaganda meme.
I bought in 2001, and I am not white.
I wasn’t suggesting you are one of those people. I was commenting on the people who talk about a time when houses were cheap, and everything was golden. They’re talking about how great it was when the US still had segregation.
Yeah, in retrospect I am getting what you are saying. But I don’t think the end of segregation really had THAT much to do with it. It just gave the white power idiots an easy target (that immigrants have somewhat taken the place of).
A big part of it is the US was the only great power who didn’t get bombed flat in WWII, which lead to a time of absolutely INCREDIBLE relative working-class prosperity as we helped the rest of the world rebuild. That prosperity was unsustainable, which was accelerated greatly by the rise of the Wall Streeters and the export of jobs to cheap 3rd world countries to make ever greater margins. We very quickly transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a services economy, and without a good education you probably aren’t getting anywhere, unlike in the days when you could just go to work in the local factory as a human robot and make decent money. Those days are long gone and not coming back.
I think you’re kind of missing the point.
“the days when you could just go to work in the local factory as a human robot and make decent money”
Those days were when _white_ men could do that, because their purchasing power was boosted by the effects of segregation. The factory jobs were the good jobs, relatively well paid because they were only available to a certain group: black people were restricted to the shit jobs.
I’m not missing the point at all. That certainly was an issue in SOME parts of the US – but those parts of the US that had large black populations did not have large amounts of factory jobs to start with.
Do you want to think about that a bit?
I have no need to.
You don’t think there might be a relation between the composition of the population and the location of the factories?
In any case, the spending power of factory workers was unquestionably boosted by segregation.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that it was a minor effect, at best. The black population, for obvious reasons, was (and largely still is) concentrated in the agrarian south. The manufacturing might of the US was concentrated in the north, particularly in the rust belt. There simply were not that many blacks to be kept out of those factories.
It’s well-documented that black Americans were put off moving to those areas because they were excluded from any but the very worst jobs.
Sure. But it’s not like there were 10’s of millions of people who wanted to move. Those that did moved anyway. It was a relatively small number affected by this. And it’s not like there was some absolute ban on blacks in factories. There was no shortage of black factory workers in northern states even then. I can see it being prevalent in the south for sure – but relatively speaking, there wasn’t much manufacturing in the south. There is no way this moved the needle on post-WW2 prosperity for white folk to any meaningful extent. And it was 70 years ago – get over it.
This is a “we are going to agree to disagree on this” situation.
It typically doesn’t. Real income, as a statistical measure, typically only accounts for inflation, employment mix, etc. It doesn’t factor in how costs rise, living or discretionary.
We need to start using median incomes, rather than average incomes.
The median real income is also higher.
Not anywhere at the same rate.
35% higher than 1985 is a reasonable estimate for median income as well.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
I’m going to come in on your side of this with a quick example of “Stuff is harder to afford than it used to be”
When I graduated and moved out to where I am now to be an engineer, my starting salary was $50K a year. My first apartment was a 1Br. that cost $325 a month. That was in 2003. The current starting pay for that same job is $77K. The rent for that same apartment is now $750 a month. So for JUST RENT (not utilities, food, fuel, student loan debt, etc), we’ve gone from 7.8% of income to 11.7% of income. That’s not an improvement.
On the car front, I bought a 2003 Sentra SE-R Spec V when I moved here. That car’s MSRP was $17,200, which was 34% of my annual salary. But I also financed it at 0% through Nissan. The 2026 equivalent, the Sentra SR (Inferior equivalent in all driving-fun related metrics) has an MSRP of $25K, which is only 32% of our notional salary. However, the best financing from Nissan is 4.9%, which makes it a worse deal for the notional me who has been time-shifted 23 years into the future.
I don’t even want to think about what my student debt burden would be, given what my alma mater’s tuition rates have increased to.
So, despite what V10omous’ St. Louis Fed links say, life is not appreciably more affordable in any kind of meaningful way on the day-to-day for someone coming out of college and into the workforce in an apples-to-apples comparison.
Sir, I get 12mpg, not 11. Thank you very much.
“Sir, I get 12mpg, not 11. Thank you very much.”
Are you putting it overdrive?
Yes, and he leaves the fuel shark plugged in all the time.
No, but I’m thinking of lifting it and hanging a bunch of giant flags off it. Maybe that’ll help.
Only helps when used with Truck Nutz.
Yes median income went up. But I don’t think that explains the trend I think it is more likely that in the last 6 years the top 15% of income earners went from buying 18% of new cars to 29% of new cars. That’s also some of the reason why average new car prices have gone up the middle class has moved away from buying new cars (they prefer to buy a more optioned-up used car). The top 15% earn enough to not care about gas prices. Also should be noted new car buyers age has also risen a ton (now 52 up from 49 a decade ago and 43 20 years ago) and drivers over 55 tend to travel less, but this trend has been happening alot longer then the income one.
“but the typical person lives better than their parents”
100% true.
Mind you some people will argue that they can’t buy cigarettes for as cheap as their parents generation or you can’t get a base model car and only pay an extra $500 to get the V8. And since there are no cheap V8 cars or cheap cigarettes, therefore they are worse off… or some other faulty logic like that.
And then there is the freedumb crowd. These days we have way more freedom than we had when our parents were young in the form of access to abortion, dressing how you want, expressing non-straight sexuality, NOT being expected to get married if you get a girl pregnant and a bunch of other little freedoms.
Except the freeDUMB/MAGA/Trump crowd does want true freedom for people who are not like them and are actively working to take away people’s freedoms while loudly chanting ‘FREEDOM’.
“It’s a rare person who actively wants a small car”
It’s not that rare. Just ask/observe people who have to drive and park in a city. And I’m not taking about suburb-like cities like Atlanta. I’m talking about cities like NYC, Toronto, Paris, London, etc where the roads and parking situations are genuinely tight and having a large vehicle is a pain in the ass.
Most people don’t actually live in those types of city. ALL of the major population growth for decades has been in sprawling sunbelt cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Pheonix, etc. And many who do live in old cities don’t own a car at all, even in the US. The US is a very suburban country at this point, and I doubt that is ever going to change in any significant way. The average American simply values space FAR more than “walkability”. Myself included. It was fun living in a dense, walkable downtown area when I was a kid out of college, but by the time I was in my early 30s I was MORE than ready to get out of that madness to a house in the ‘burbs.
You can have both space and walkability, if suburbs are designed properly.
To illustrate one way, imagine a suburb designed around a single road shaped like a couple of wide esses stacked on top of each other. Quicker to drive than walk, obviously. Now put a footpath down the middle, like the bar on a dollar sign. Quicker to walk. Do that repeatedly around a central point, stick a few shops, maybe the local doctor and a school, and the bus stop or station, where the paths meet, and you have a suburb where kids walk to school and that doesn’t require a car journey to buy a bottle of milk.
https://www.google.com/search?q=twittens+hampstead+garden+suburb
My suburban area is perfectly walkable/bikeable. Both of them actually, summer and winter homes. I don’t walk anywhere because I don’t want to, not because I can’t. It’s too damned hot or cold or wet most of the time. I do a fair amount of bicycling for fun and exercise. Which I did not do when I lived downtown – too dangerous.
Kids in both places walk to school as both houses are inside the distance where they are bussed. K-12 at my winter place, elementary school at my summer place, the jr high/high school is on the other side of town there.
Oh, I can bang on about this for hours. One of the often overlooked factors in walkability is protection from the weather. Shade, in hot places, maybe canopies in wet ones.
Whether to walk or cycle or not is your choice, but people should have the choice (in suburbs and cities) rather than being restricted by poor planning and lack of provision of appropriate facilities.
Excellent point about larger vehicles getting ever better fuel economy.
If we flip fuel economy from miles per gallon to something more easily comprehended like gallons to travel 100 miles, this makes more sense. A modern F150 can indeed do 20 mpg combined with the 2.7 TTV6. That’s 5 gallons per 100 miles. A 1975 F150 got about 10 mpg combined from the 4.9 I6. Or 10 gallons per 100 miles. So in 50 years a F150 halved its fuel consumption. While managing to be a much more capable and comfortable vehicle to boot. Going 400 miles on 20 gallons is a lot more palatable than going 200 miles.
Count your likes; lots of us appreciate hearing the truth. I rarely agree with your slant, but your facts are always dead on. This entire chain is so incredibly frustrating. Watching seemingly good people intentionally delude themselves to wrap their preconceptions in truthiness is a very scary and frustrating thing. I lack your patience and could not have held the line as long without going pure insult.
There’s a saying about dehydrated horses or something, and my tactic of holding their face in the water and kicking them squarely in the dust bunnies so they’ll accidentally swallow some water has never actually helped the horse. Some horses aren’t going to learn and can best be put to use as an example to horses closer to survival.
I sometimes regret getting into these arguments because it’s incredibly frustrating that some people seem not to wish to understand, and the political consequences of that refusal are apparent around us.
It’s been a while since I’ve done this, and I’m not sure I’ll bother again for a while.
I appreciate your comment, seriously. Whether or not we agree on everything *should* have no impact on whether or not we can agree on what is factual. Unfortunately, that seems to just be wishful thinking, and in more cases than just economics.
I have more friends of “the opposite” ideology than my own. Not that I allow an assigned ideology based on some litmus tests to decide my views for me. I’m a fan of economics, not a practitioner. I do try to promote using facts in decision making. Thanks for fighting for Truth yesterday.
You could simply check the Gini coefficient (inequality is increasing fast and has been since 1980) and compare house prices versus inflation. Also, people in the 1980s had pensions. Healthcare costs have significantly outpaced inflation since 1935 – $1K in healthcare in 1935 costs $58,038.20 today, whereas the straight inflation is $24,461.53.
In the 1980s, childcare was typically ad hoc or low cost – average weekly cost in 1985 was $125.15 in today’s dollars, now it is from $280 to $332.
Income may be up on paper but disposable income is not, except for the top layers of society.
Setting aside full size trucks (which have basically retained market share over the decades) the typical crossover gets way better fuel economy than an old sedan. The best selling non-trucks are the CR-V and RAV4. More than half of the CR-Vs that Honda sells are hybrids that get 37 mpg. 100% of RAV4s are hybrid that crack the 40 mpg barrier.
As to debt? Yes, a large percentage of US households are happy to stay in debt indefinitely. They think based on monthly payments not actual cost. Which is also why there is backlash right now as interest rates went from a decade of almost free back to historical norms. That Highlander buyer is having to go to a 72 year loan to keep the same payment as what they had a few years ago and the dealer is happy to do that for them. The dealer mantra is to never talk price – only payments.
I don’t know if households are happy to stay in debt so much as they are conditioned to do so. Or uneducated about credit. Or driven by social pressure to live beyond their means. Or stuff is just too expensive.
But yeah, everyone will be happy to give you credit and high interest loans for long periods as long as they think you will at least pay most of it back. As a consumer, you have to look out for yourself and your best interests.
It’s expensive to be poor in this country, and even more expensive when you let others convince you to stay poor by making horrible financial decisions.
I can give examples from my own family of people staying behind the eight ball due to poor financial decisions. But in my circle that is very much the exception. Most people do actually live within thier means. You simply don’t ever hear about the people who are living comfortably within thier means.
Yep. The family I have that make bad decisions won’t listen to sane advice either. But yes, I struggle to teach my kids, and even the wife that the people who are doing well hide in the shadows and don’t flaunt it. Most of the people with the big houses and expensive cars are deeply in debt but will never tell you.
Or the people with big houses and expensive cars just have lots of money. Which is the norm in my experience. YMMV.
But a modern sedan still gets notably better fuel economy than a jacked-up overly heavy crossover. Not that I have any love for sedans (I find them useless), but I prefer my wagons to be sedan weight (my BMW wagon is only ~150lbs heavier than the sedan and ~50lbs of that is the mandatory panoramic sunroof) and have sedan (or often better) aerodynamics and thus sedan fuel economy, aka the proper station wagons we no longer get in this country.
It was always fun to tell dealers that I could pay for the thing with one payment or as many as it has months of warranty, and the interest rate would determine what I did.
I’m also a fan of wagons and have been driving them for 30 years now. Not enough buyers in the USA agree so we don’t have them anymore.
However, the point remains. Fuel prices don’t affect buying nearly as much as they did the the past because average fuel economy has increased significantly and gas is cheaper than in the past when adjusted for inflation. During the 70’s gas crunch the average new car sold got 13 mpg. In the 2007/2008 recession it was 20 mpg. In 2024 that was up to 28 mpg.
I’ve also personally found that 40 mpg is the point where increasing fuel economy really doesn’t save much fuel or or money. A quirk of MPG having a nonlinear relationship to fuel consumption. Someone driving 15,000 miles per year and paying $4 a gallon will save $1500 a year going from a 20 mpg vehicle to a 40 mpg vehicle. 40 mpg to 60 mpg saves $500. Some that can afford to buy a new car isn’t going to sweet paying another $10 a week for fuel.
Today hybrid crossovers are reaching that 40 mpg sweet spot.
The manufacturers figured out that people will pay more for a wagon if they jack it up and slather black plastic all over it, and they advertise it as a “lifestyle vehicle” to people who will do nothing more with it than drive to work and back. It’s marketing, and nothing else.
Agree with the rest of your analysis. Gas is too cheap in the US for most people to give more than lip service to efficiency, and the gains have largely been forced by CAFE, not because people care. That additional efficiency is coming at a pretty steep price, somewhat up front but definitely down the road. There are going to be a LOT of mechanically totaled hybrid crossovers in a decade or so. Toyota has it nailed, but I have zero confidence the rest of the industry does. But you pay a hell of a Toyota tax upfront these days. TANSTAAFL.
It doesn’t matter why buyers decided they want a crossover – they did. Wagons have never been very popular in the USA largely because our cars as so big.
Yes, fuel economy is almost completely driven by CAFE. Manufacturers do the minimum required to meet the standard and when fines are low they will chose to just pay the fine. You can see this in EPA’s reporting – the fleet economy tracks CAFE
Not sure what you mean by “mechanical totalled” hybrids . Are you saying that the battery will be dead in 10 years? The 25 year history of hybrid says that is unlikely. 18 to 20 years is the typical life for a typical regular hybrid.
Wagons were historically available across product lines, and typically made up 10% of sales of a model. Certainly more of them were sold than such naff bullshit as “coupe crossovers”.
Historically, the overwhelmingly vast majority of hybrids have been Toyotas with thier brilliantly simple drive system. Only Toyota and a relatively few Fords use that. Literally every other hybrid system has been a disaster. GM hybrids – disasters. Even Hondas were terrible. The German attempts were also terrible, but so few were sold you never hear about them. Stellantis can’t even get thier NEW hybrids working correctly. Do you seriously think that the KIA/Hyundai systems with turbo motors and an automatic (conventional or CVT) and electric motors and batteries are going to be as long-term reliable as the Toyota/Ford system? The battery might be fine, but you can bet there rest of it won’t be.
Toyota has it nailed, but as I said, you pay a hell of an upfront tax on them. Even if MSRP isn’t too bad, they quite often have a steep dealer add-on, especially here in the Southeast.
Lots of good reasons below, but also; the scale of consumer impact has not reached the levels of the 1970s.
Prices weren’t just high, supply was so low stations were just plain running out of gas. Lines were long enough to last hours, fuel amounts were rationed, and prices tripled. Even with the recent surge, that hasn’t happened, my local prices for premium went from right around $3/gallon to at it’s peak just over $7.
While that sucked, it wasn’t park the car and walk levels of disparity, and at that price I’m still getting 30+ MPG out of my Civic.
Six months before the first gas crisis hit my Dad bought a brand new Dodge Ramcharger with fulltime 4WD. He literally could not afford to fuel his vehicle, and still to this day asks me about “Gas Prices Up there” every time we talk. Generations since have never experienced that level of impact, and their reactions are framed a such.
I remember in way more recent times when people had more “reasonable” reactions. That was during the 2007-2008 recession when gas prices reached a similarly high level. And the lots were just crammed with cheap full sized trucks. We’re not seeing that now and instead seems like the opposite is happening with people happily slapping down 100k on the Ford King Scorpion Badass 9.0 whatever
This is my recollection as well. Rows of Tahoes and Suburbans on the used lot are burned into my brain. Honda couldn’t pump out Civics fast enough. I expected a similar shift this time for fuel efficient cars and rapidly shifted from my Bronco dream to a PHEV, in an effort to beat the expected price increase from higher demand.
The best selling vehicles in 2008 were the Ford F series and Chevy Silverado, just as they have been for the past 50 years.
Fleet sales gonna fleet sale.
Fleet sales are a chunk of that, but nowhere near the majority. (google sez 15-25%)And if anything, fleets care MORE about fuel economy than the average punter.
The vast majority of pickup trucks are hauling nothing but thier owner’s asses to work and back every day. Sedans with a back porch.
I gave it a look as well, said somewhere between 35-40% depending on year. That’s a pretty good chunk. Fleets care about fuel economy, but still need the form factor of a pickup. I think the hybrid F150 being the default fleet purchase and the biggest model line of full sized trucks reflects both realities.
Yeah, but it gets like 500 miles of range on a tank, I get to sit up higher, I feel safer, and I wouldn’t want to take little Olivia and Carter to practice in a *gasp* minivan!
500 miles on a 30 gallon tank. Math is so hard… Then they complain about how much a tank of fuel costs.
IT was a blip though, and the gas supply wasn’t constraining in the same ways. I never had to wait for gas, or decide I had to take the bus to work, nor did anyone I know; including people with Tahoes and Suburbans.
I suspect those trade ins were panic buyers who DID live through the 70s and thought the bad old days were back.
I think there’s a whole lot of “Fuck it” going around right now.
People have learned that these spikes are temporary. A year or two from now and these high prices won’t even be a memory. How often do you think about the similarly high prices during the pandemic recovery? Actually, they were MUCH higher then in most of the country. Summer of ’22 I was paying well over $5/gal during my migration from FL to ME. And that was a HUGE spike because the pandemic had suppressed demand and thus prices so much. I paid something like $1.89/gal for a good chunk of 2021 when the world was shut down. I hadn’t seen prices like that in decades. Prices haven’t even gone above $4 in my area in the latest nonsense.
You are misremembering what happened in 2007-2008. Gas prices surged BEFORE the recession in 2007, largely driven by speculation, then crashed to under $2/gal as the recession took hold in 2008 and demand cratered.
Ultimately, gas prices go up, and gas prices go down, but on average adjusted for inflation over time gas is simply not wildly more expensive than it ever has been. Gas was $1.09/gal when I got my driver’s license in 1986. Adjusted for inflation that is just about what I paid at BJ’s in Florida last weekend, and a lot more than I was paying before Trump’s Iran fiasco. The Subaru I drove back then got low 30’s mpg with my heavy teenage foot driving it, which is better than my Mercedes or BMW does today – but not wildly better. I don’t really care THAT much about fuel economy, though the cars I prefer tend to be reasonably efficient.
Its easy to overestimate how much gas costs in the overall picture.
Lets assume you drive a truck that gets 15 mpg and you drive 18,000 miles per year and gas is $5/gallon.
Thats 1200 gal x 5 so $6000/yr. If gas drops back to $2.50/gal its still going to cost $3000 which most Americans seem to feel is affordable.
Is $3000/yr short term enough to get people to sell their ICE truck, pay a premium for an EV, higher insurance and a vehicle that might not meet their requirements or desires?
The market clearly seems to indicate no. If you happen to drive less in a far more fuel efficient vehicle the financial case becomes even less appealing.
There is a market for EV’s, it just seems to me that the people who actually want one is somewhat tapped out at the moment in North America at least.
Gas is cheap.
Where?
A sustained period of high gas prices might influence my next purchase, but I can’t just go get a new car because gas prices go up, so it won’t really impact the timeline for my next purchase.
Gas prices are being artificially deflated in Red states with the most number of trucks and SUVs, while they are being artificially inflated in Blue states with the most number of hybrids and smaller cars. Don’t believe me? Lots of websites will tell you what gas posts on average in TX vs CA or any other state. Was in the mid-west a few weeks back and gas there was higher than normal, no doubt, but not nearly the jump compared to back home (coastal blue state).
Also in general ALL vehicles are more fuel efficient than a comparable vehicle was 10 or 20 years ago. So higher fuel costs sting less. And while companies are turning away from this, many more people work a hybrid schedule than before. Would have been mostly unheard of for a regular office worker to work-from-home even 1 day a week in the 90s, but its not that uncommon these days.
I wish I could say that public transit has gotten better in the last 10 or 20 years, but for the vast majority of Americans, that is definitely not the case.
California in particular has largely self-inflicted gas pricing woes that are exaggerated compared to the rest of the country.
People on a budget cannot afford a new car of any kind. The ones who can afford a new car can apparently justify fuel expenses to get what they think they want.
Ultimately, people just buy what they want. They say they care about fuel economy, but not really THAT much in most cases.
And yes, the average new car buyer doesn’t really need to care about fuel efficiency. Gas is cheap.
It costs what it costs when it costs that. On the Neo-Con Right Wing you got high gas prices via foreign wars and oil tariffs, on the Socialist Left Wing you got high gas prices via high gas taxes and burdensome regulation whose cost gets passed onto the consumer.
The moderates on the right and on the left win F all elections, and the radicals on either side that don’t want high gas prices/do care about gas prices rarely win, and when they do the establishment has massive interest in getting them out of their political system (Like Thomas Massie).
Frankly if you don’t need to tow over 4000lbs, or need more than 4.5ft of bed, I think the Maverick Hybrid AWD with the 4K towing package is the way to go.
Honestly I’m hoping they’ll update the Maverick Tremor with the Hybrid Drivetrain, if they did that I’d have a very hard time not buying one, though with how much I’m liking the height adjustable air suspension on my new Ram I’d probably be better off just buying the 4K towing Maverick hybrid and having a custom height adjustable air suspension setup put in it.
TBQ: Nature abhors a vacuum, as do, car sales, I suspect. I don’t think there’s any way to answer; it’s always going to be a factor of up-front cost, refueling/recharging time/cost/availability, specific use case, and political climate. The vacuum scenario just doesn’t exist.
That said, I don’t think 50-60% battery EV sales is unrealistic given time. The rest will likely be split between PHEV, Hybrid, and ICE, with Hybrids likely outselling the PHEV and ICE options. Total “electrified” fleet could end up as high 90%, but never 100% unless some kind of market shock puts us in Mad Max guzzoline territory.
You can’t straight-face tell me that your sales are being driven by the TRX.
It just reads like a wishlist of what they want to sell.
So, will Fain end up in prison like other UAW presidents?
“At least you can find your former presidents”
-Teamsters Union.
LOL
TBQ: 100% since electric cars like the lunar rovers can work in a vacuum but air breathing ICE cars do not.
In a vacuum I think the dust mites would have an easier time developing combustion engines, so I think 0%. They would rapidly run into issues with pollution, however.
TBQ: For new cars, I think we should be getting to 75%. Partially that’ll happen as more people drive better EVs and realize they’re just plain better to drive than your run of the mill ICE vehicle. Partially it’ll happen as the rest of the world takes policy steps to stop relying so much on oil.
Are we sure they have the right president? I wouldn’t put it past DOJ to have someone crossing out another name and writing in “Fain” above. Are there any allegations about Fain screwing up a pool?
The UAW needs no help in being corrupt.
Less joke answer, I think it depends on what you mean by “in a vacuum”. Do we assume that charging infrastructure is as ubiquitous as gas stations (either both prevalent, or neither and we’re asking which one to build out), or “status quo” where gas stations are much more visible than charging stations? I think in this scenario we have to assume that car manufacturers offer “equally appealing” EV and ICE vehicles, but do we also assume that dealers are equally happy to sell either one, or that they would prefer to sell whatever will require the most maintenance? Do ICE cars contribute to anthropogenic climate change (obviously yes in general, but for purposes of this scenario), and to what extent are the costs of that taken into account for each? As Bearddevil is getting at, are people considering what they actually need out of a car, or what they imagine themselves maybe someday possibly needing? (“A nation of temporarily embarrassed billionaires” logic but for cars, if you will.) And similarly, who is buying new cars?
If we assume that “in a vacuum” means on something approaching equal footing when it comes to support (charging stations vs. gas pumps, sales channel preference, etc.), with current technology levels, and “what percentage should be” implies that people are going to realistically think about their needs, I think somewhere (and could be quite significantly) over 50% BEV in the Northeast and West Coast regions, with lower numbers in more sparsely populated areas (though PHEVs being second, particularly around larger-but-isolated cities and towns).
Realistically though, what assumptions you make about the conditions “in a vacuum” is going to have the biggest impact on what numbers are. But I think that the question this is getting at might be something like “as time goes on, assuming that ‘the powers that be’ remain relatively neutral in promoting or hindering either one, what will long-term sales trends be?” – under the assumption that “in a vacuum” represents some sort of steady-state solution. If that’s the question, I’m still bullish on the growth potential for BEV over ICE – many of the current hindrances to BEV adoption (lack of familiarity, lack of charging locations, lack of visibility of charging locations, paucity of affordable options, etc.) are fundamentally things which can/will be overcome in time. And I think PHEVs could play a role here, assuming people get used to actually plugging them in as charging infrastructure builds out. I certainly can’t argue that earlier predictions of EV adoption using similar logic weren’t overly optimistic, but equally I do think that was more a matter of underestimating how long it would take to change those factors than it is whether those factors matter.
Solar panels for ALL!
I realize that the current state of the country is completely stupid but, why doesn’t any candidate/party push for free solar panels for single home owners and just about all new construction? Free energy is literally right over our heads.
I am probably a perfect case to own an EV. I have a garage and a house with available space in the panel to plug one in. But all of my ICE vehicles are paid for, so I have no inclination to buy anything else right now.
If someone came along and plopped an array on my roof for $0, I’d strongly consider getting an EV just to get rid of having to buy gas, oil, etc. Not to mention the $3500 annual cost for electricity at my house.
Seriously. We can borrow ourselves into oblivion with wars, but we can’t do something as simple as solar for all? Don’t even get me started on healthcare.
Who is paying for those free solar panels? They aren’t actually free, so they have to be paid for by someone. And what about in 10 years, or 20 years? Who is paying to replace them as they fail? Or the batteries? If we all have to pay for it in taxes, why not just let the market decide, so we each pay our own way anyway?
Solar may be a correct answer. I can’t agree that gov’t mandated solar (the only pathway to anything one could call “free”) is the correct answer.
Who is paying for Tomahawk missiles? At least with solar you actually get something for what you pay in taxes.
Sounds like YOU get a Hell of a lot more for that tax money than taxpayers who rent.
Sure. Because I was living in a time where a single guy with a decent job could afford a house. When I purchased my house in 2000, it was $105k and I was earning about $65k/year. My house is now “valued” at close to a million and not many jobs around here even pay $65k.
And now you want more free money. Nice.
Take out a HELOC and pay for the damn panels yourself.
Lucky you. I paid $140K for my house in 2001 and I made <$35K. And it was a dump.
Also, you are out of your tree if you don’t think many jobs pay $65K today. That is very entry level professional pay today. My company starts the new ops kids right out of college at higher than that.
With that attitude, maybe you need some Tomahawk missiles.
In more serious notes, the thought of distributed power generation does have merit.
Even if it’s state-owned, if they covered cost of installation of solar on every large flatroof building (think: boxstores, industrial facilities, warehouses, data centers, etc…) – that’s a lot of “free real estate” that should, generally, have decent ROI.
Current state of capitalism makes me wonder why the building owner (often separate from the occupant) hasn’t already done this – as they would have a tolerance for a much longer time horizon for payback/returns than typical homeowners.
I’ll be happy to take as many Tomahawks as I can get. I have plans…big plans…
“the thought of distributed power generation does have merit.”
It does, however I’ve also seen data that says the most efficient use in terms of cost for solar is solar farms. So tax dollars would buy more panels in a solar farm. I imagine the electronics to convert the power and put it on the grid would be more efficient too, especially with time since homeowners can’t always be trusted to upkeep the hardware or keep the sun shining on the panels.
I dunno about where you live but I see a lot of rooftop solar on such industrial buildings.
https://sustainablepowernews.com/fedex-solar-rooftops-carbon-neutrality-promise/
I also see solar installed in public schools but not in what I would call the best locations. I asked why and was told it would have cost a lot more to put it on the roof and somewhat more in the parking lot. So it was put in the fields instead where it was cheapest.
Oh well, at least the kids have a shady spot to vape.
The one I’d like to see even more than rooftop solar is foam roofs. Those are highly insulating, highly reflective, highly water resistant when installed properly and can last a very long time. And they’re compatible with rooftop solar.
The other one I’d like to see is water cooled solar panels with that heat going into the water heater, the HVAC and pool if applicable.
In areas that have decent state-level incentives for solar, like much of New England, rooftop solar is *everywhere*. I would have done it at my place in Maine ages ago if I paid the power bill there, but I don’t, so there is no reason for me to spend the money. Very high electric rates in the area help that along considerably. But that is an example of what you posit- I am the owner but not the primary occupant (I’m only there a couple months in the summer). I would allow my housemates to do it, but they can’t afford to do it, and the incentives are only to the owner (and I don’t pay taxes in that state, since I am not a resident). Commercial property is no different.
In Florida, power is too cheap and I don’t use enough to bother. Though for post-hurricane power outage usage I would like to get a “battery generator” with a portable panel array to charge it. I mostly see it in Florida on houses with pools. Pool pumps and heaters use a TON of power.
What are you ranting about?
Modern solar panels have 25 year warranties, and useful life well beyond that not to mention payoffs in Northern US of ~10years (less for larger installations)
If we keep going where we are going sans crazy politicos. The “Ai data centers” if you live close to one. Then again probably not.
Solar panels wouldn’t do a dang thing for me. I have a wooded yard. I looked into it when I needed a new roof and there wasn’t enough power available on my roof to power a LED TV.
However, a wind-turbine might help.
Cut down some trees? That was an option when I explored panels a few years ago. At the time, though, zero of the installers would allow me to simply pay for the array. They all wanted me to finance it.
It’s not actually my trees that are the problem. It’s everything about the house and my neighbor’s trees.
North facing roofs don’t count for solar. My house has an asymmetrical roof with an extreme pitch on the south and a flatter pitch on the north facing roof. This means I have very little south facing roof. Add in dormers and two extensions and that small south facing roof is in the shade from the house 18+ hours a day.
This leaves the east/west sections that aren’t optimal for solar, but possible. And both my neighbors have a ton of trees (as do I ).
Oh, did I mention I’m below grade on the downward slope of a hill that blocks more of the sun?
20+ years ago, I had a new home, which had a giant roof in what used to be a cotton field that was flat as a pancake. I had trees, but not new ones and the house was a classic newer Southern hill just slapped like a mushroom in an empty field. That house was perfect for solar. But this older home was built to intentionally keep the sun off the roof to reduce power bills. Even with old insulation and 20+ years of inflation, it costs $200 less a month to cool this older home in the shade than the new home did, even though the newer home had half the square footage.
“20+ years ago, I had a new home, which had a giant roof in what used to be a cotton field that was flat as a pancake. I had trees, but not new ones and the house was a classic newer Southern hill just slapped like a mushroom in an empty field. That house was perfect for solar.”
It sounds like it was also perfect for a white foam roof too. Those not only insulate very, very well but reflect sunlight very, very well.
How about free swimming pools and Jacuzzis for all homeowners too?
How about trying to make any sense whatsoever?
From a renter’s perspective giving homeowners who already receive the huge financial gain of skyrocketing real estate values the extra gift of free solar comes across as a ridiculous, selfish, tone deaf proposal as giving homeowners free swimming pools and Jacuzzis.
Better to have those taxpayer funded panels installed commercially where those tax dollars go further per kWh with the requirement the power costs reflect the gift. Homeowners OTOH can take out a HELOC and pay for the damn panels themselves.
I clearly stated ALL new construction. A GD swimming pool does not help lower anyone’s bills.
Nope:
“why doesn’t any candidate/party push for free solar panels for single home owners and just about all new construction?”
Emphasis mine. Your call for free panels on new construction is not the same as a giveaway to homeowners.
You are right. Pools and hot tubs for all then. Enjoy the ride. At least one of us had a decent “concept of a plan”.
If you concept was even more wealth transfer from renters to greedy homeowners sure, great plan.
I would be in support of a requirement for all new builds to have some level of solar panels pre-installed and connected. Scaled, of course, to the size of the building. It would be cheaper and more efficient to install at a fresh build than retrofitting to Bob’s 50-year-old suburban house with questionable roof & electrics.
But I think better bang for your buck would be to have large flatroofs (box stores, warehouses, industrial buildings) to install & maintain them.
Yes and to get rid of tar and gravel in favor of foam roofs.
Economic cases like this are why there are lots of loop holes for farmers. The permits create a lot of issues, costs, and headaches that don’t need to be created. But plugin solar is now a legal thing in several states with more on the way. So renters and any random person can plugin a island mode capable solar controller to their outlet and have some solar though out their abode.
Probably not going to help much with a bev. But used panels are dirt cheap throw a few on a roof with a Chinese split phase inverter and directly charge a used bev.
IMO, if you’re a two-car or more household, at least one of them should be an EV.
I say this in the context of daily drivers, not seasonal/weekend cars.
I would add the word “eventually”. My current fleet has been paid off for 10 years and works well. The finances to replace them with ANY new(er) vehicle just doesn’t make sense.
However, one day, both vehicles will need replaced. A hybrid / EV makes perfect sense to go to when that happens.
Yeah, I should’ve added that, as that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Don’t replace a car until it makes economic sense (or you want a new one and have the money to spend).
The only reason I would consider EV is for commute and I cannot justify spending 50~60k on a commuter car.
Great news, there are many options well under that price range.
When we got our first EV a few years ago (a ’23 Bolt EUV Premier-trim), it was intended for the wife to use as her around-town, commuter car, while our ICE would remain our primary vehicle.
That idea lasted less than a week.
The Bolt became our primary car for EVERYTHING other than road trips or needing to truck/haul/tow. We had no desire to waste gas, money (our EV cost about 1/4 the price of ga$ to go the same mile in our ICE) and pollute (more) if we didn’t’ have to.
The first time you drive your EV past your favorite gas station is when you’ll ‘get it’. It’s an epiphany that you can wake up every morning with a full tank and never need to go to a gas station with your EV. Paying for gas becomes painful.
I think that’s pretty common. Your EV will quickly become your primary vehicle.
PS. It also doesn’t hurt that most EVs, even the smaller wheelbase/cheaper ones, can be a blast to drive with instant torque and a quiet ride.
I second this, got a Bolt for a 75 mile commute almost 9 years ago, and it’s been our primary vehicle for 5 years now, including road trips. Our only other vehicle is an old Jeep for occasional off road use. With work from home becoming permanent after covid, the wife sold her X1 since she basically never drove it, saying it felt like it was towing a trailer compared to the Bolt, and of course it had much higher running costs.
A 3rd here. I had a 2016 Spark EV for 3 years. Only got it because of the $99 per month lease. With only 80 miles of range it worked for my 40 to 50 mile commute and short trips around town. It never left the metro in 3 years.
In 2021 we bought a used 2017 Bolt EV. With 250 miles of range it quickly became our primary car.
I wouldn’t get a new car for just commuting. Get a quality used car. EV’s are famous for holding value as well as a sieve holds water (although that is changing). This sucks if you are buying new, but is great if you are looking at a 3 year old car that costs less than a 6 year old car with twice the miles.
Ignoring the obvious joke others have already covered, I’d say we should be at a very high percentage. But no decision is made in a vacuum. We have a lot of factors at play. Oil companies, gas stations, compliance cars, battery technology, etc. all play into it.
If we were starting from scratch without any of that baggage, but somehow with our current electrical grid and all the technical advances we’ve made since automobiles became commonplace, I’d say we’d be going for EVs in almost all cases (and, hopefully, public transit would not have been gutted). It makes more sense than dropping a bunch of tanks into the ground. We wouldn’t have the compliance cars that companies made–we’d just have companies trying to make the best EV they could, so there probably wouldn’t be as much suspicion of them. And we wouldn’t have the same expectations we do now.
Depending how you define “electric vehicle”, I see an explosion of electric vehicles in my area. But not from cars; rather from electric stand-up scooters and electric bicycles. These sorts of “electric vehicles” have become the modern equivalent of the Vespa or Honda Super Cub, providing cheap motorized transportation to people who could not otherwise afford motorized transportation at all.
But are they really replacing Vespas and Scoopys? I see mostly teenagers having those. I think it is actually replacing public transport.
I see teenagers using them to make the very limited bus options in my area more practical. But I also see a surprising number of adults seemingly commuting with them.
“This was one of the moments for me when my doubts that we’d see a 50% EV market by 2030 were solidified.”
50% EVs by 2030 was never an actual goal in the USA. (100% by 2035 wasn’t either – even in California)
50% EV – all homeowners with a garage or ability to charge at home should have one. Apartments/condo/garage Managers need to get on board with providing L2 charging.
25% Hybrid – For the users that do 500 mile commutes every day or can’t home charge
25% ICE – Applications where ICE is the right tool for the job or you have 1k commute everyday uphill in -20 degree temps
Just visited some family who have a nice condo. Their parking garage has a handful of dedicated EV charge stations.
My parent’s condo, on the other hand, would require them to pay to have their dedicated parking stall to be kitted with an outlet for charging (doable, but according to them the cost isn’t that much worse than wiring a L2 into your garage if you had to pay someone to do it).
I think the first scenario, even if they charged residents for time of use, for a handful of dedicated charges would be doable for many rental/condo buildings.
So at least at the car dealership I work at, we ran out of EVs in early May and our incoming inventory is pre-sold. We’d sell more if we had more but we are heavily inventory limited. I think there’s a strong market for EVs of certain brands and demographics and those are the ones that are currently trying to meet demand.
For example if you were an average shopper interested in an EV for your next car, would you jump to Stellantis or VW from Toyota or just wait for Toyota to get more EVs in stock?
VW or Stellantis? Ouch that’s like asking where you would like to get stabbed.
Exactly, that’s why our EVs here at Subaru are booked out until October
It would be interesting to see the EV percentage in Canada, especially here in Quebec. The dealers can’t keep them on the lot. GM and Hyundai/Kia are dominating here in the EV’s. Tesla has been relegated to doing “OK” in Quebec.
P.S.: charging infrastructure makes all the difference for adoption. We’re close to 40,000 public chargers now with a goal of 100,000 by 2030ish.
Having been recently to both Quebec and BC: EVs are very prevalent and I would say much higher proportion than the US average (even in rural areas).
But, hilariously, the proportion of Teslas is very low in Quebec: a definite “Je me souviens” with Elon’s antics.
TBQ: I’ll be realistic and say 80%. Are we counting hybrids? Then mo-def 80%, because, as the kids say, “eff ICE”.
As for that phrase used in the single (?) quote marks, in the lede?
Turns out the “soft expectations” business was coined by Michael Gerson, the hack whose job it was to write words to make President Dubyuh seem smart.
As a cancer guy myself, I get to say it brought me joy to learn that Gerson popped his clogs from kidney cancer at 58, some years back.
Not as much joy as hearing the good news about Lindsey, but up there.
(I’ll grant that it’s often an apt phrase and used properly, here; I steal it myself sometimes.)
10 percent EVs is about right unless/until a better range/recharge paradigm is developed.
70 percent could probably be a hybrid of some type, from mild to EREV.
The remaining 20 percent should be ICE alone, both for purists and for applications where hybrids may not be best suited (low weight sports cars, HD trucks, very cheap entry-level vehicles, etc).
We’re there already. We’ve been leasing a Chevy Equinox EV. Its around 315 miles of range and we have an adaptor for Tesla Superchargers- which we have never used. My wife comes home and plugs it into the pedestrian 220 volt outlet I wired in and it’ll charge from 0-100% in around 7-8 hours even though we never do that. Instead it gets “topped off” every few days since 300 miles is enough for going back and forth to work for 3-4 days.
If we had to use a supercharger, there’s 100’s of them here in town. Around 30 a mile from my house. They will charge the car in 20 mins flat. And they are everywhere here ( California). Its $18-$20 to charge it. That’s a fraction of the cost to gas up the same sized SUV.
Only getting better from here. 500+ mile EVs are almost the norm, will become the norm, and rapid charge solid state batteries are on the horizon meaning longer range, less weight, probably a 25+ year life expectancy and of course charge stations are still being built.
“Its $18-$20 to charge it. That’s a fraction of the cost to gas up the same sized SUV.”
Is it?
The RAV-4 Prime gets very close to the same distance per kWh but also takes gas so its an excellent model to test your premise.
The RAV4 Prime is rated at 38 MPG. To go 315 miles it would need to consume 8.28 gallons of regular which works out to $2.29/ gallon, a price we haven’t seen in California for a very long time.
However
That also means superchargers are charging $0.172/kWh which sounds suspiciously low:
https://evchargingcalifornia.com/tesla_supercharging_rates_ca.html
The Tesla published supercharger rates of $0.30/$0.50/$0.75+ per kWh works out to $4.10/$6.82/$10+ gallon which makes EVs far less economical.
But you’re missing that most charging should be done at home, if you are aiming for frugality.
Not the point:
“If we had to use a supercharger, there’s 100’s of them here in town. Around 30 a mile from my house. They will charge the car in 20 mins flat. And they are everywhere here ( California). Its $18-$20 to charge it. That’s a fraction of the cost to gas up the same sized SUV.”
The point is the claim does not match Tesla’s own published rates and when you use those the claim becomes dubious at best.
The numbers aren’t as incorrect as you think.
’27 Bolt is going to soak up like 20-40kWh in 20 minutes depending on beginning SOC. That means the cost would be anywhere from $.45-1.00/kWh Which is like right around the published rates from Tesla?
The only lie was the implication that the Bolt will fully charge in 20 minutes. Yeah, maybe if it started off at 50-60%. Heck, Chevrolet even says it takes ~26 minutes to go from 10%-80%.
Why would the beginning SOC matter in the cost per kWh?
Because that impacts the charge speed and thus amount of energy “used” during 20 minutes. Plug in at 5% SOC and charge for 20 minutes and you’ll get a lot more kWh of energy than if you plug in at 40% and charge for 20 minutes.
I think you are confusing peak/off peak and surge pricing (which is the price per kWh) with the per minute tiered charging speed:
How does pricing work?
Supercharger stations are priced differently across locations due to Tesla’s dynamic pricing model, which adjusts rates in real-time based on site-specific factors like occupancy and forecasted demand to optimize utilization and manage congestion effectively. At a high level, the pricing algorithm per site evaluates real-time occupancy levels, distributes usage throughout the day, increases average site efficiency and balances network load.
Whenever possible, owners are billed per kWh (kilowatt-hour); in other areas, owners are billed per minute.
When billing per minute, there are four tiers to account for changes in charging speeds: ‘Tier 1,’ ‘Tier 2,’ ‘Tier 3’ and ‘Tier 4.’
Tier 1. Charging at or below 60 kW -Lowest price per minute
Tier 2. Charging above 60 kW, at or below 100 kW – Second-lowest price per minute
Tier 3. Charging above 100 kW, at or below 180 kW – Second-highest price per minute
Tier 4. Charging above 180 kW – Highest price per minute
Which makes sense since faster charging uses fewer minutes but the cost per kWh should remain steady.
https://www.tesla.com/support/charging/supercharging#pricing
I’m not confusing anything.
Billing per hour is less common. I’m using their billing per kWh which is far more common. I’m also using the per kWh billing because that’s what you originally used.
I used OP’s claim of 20 minutes, which is how I figured out they’d likely gain anywhere from 20-40kWh of juice depending on the scenario (starting SOC, what generation SuperCharger, weather outside…). This is the only reason I’m citing minutes. I’m doing it to try to figure out kWh.
The original claim of $18-20 spent for a 20 minute charge is believable, even within the per kWh charge rate. This is where my prices of $.45-1.00/kWh. Which again, is very believable and is rather wide since there are a lot of assumptions.
What I am admitting is OP’s claim that it takes 20 minutes for a full charge. That’s false unless they started off at like 50-60%. Which I certainly wouldn’t call that a “full charge”. Full (as close to 0% and going to 100%) takes like 50 minutes to an hour on a new ’27. And like I said before, 10% to 80% takes ~26 minutes.
I have only seen Tesla’s per kWh rates are priced only to time of day and grid demand, not to the rate of charge.
Please provide a link showing Tesla does indeed modify their per kWh rates by charging speed.
Yup… It in fact is and here is a real-life experience from real people who actually own an EV:
car 1 is a 2023 Subaru Crosstrek that gets at best, 34 MPG. At the current gas prices here, which is over $5 a gallon, even if I round it down to $5, its $300 a month to gas the Subaru, which keep in mind is an econo car. So adjust accordingly for the best-selling large trucks that get maybe 18MPG on a downhill slope.
Car 2 is a 2024 Chevy Equinox EV. Its $150 a month to charge it at home. And that’s off a 220 volt oultet, some romex and a new breaker in the box- about $275 worth of hardware.
Keep in mind most of us driving these things charge at home…. because its convenient. But we can charge at a supercharger just the same and the rates are dependent on where and when you charge and its pretty easy, at least around here, to charge your car up a lot cheaper than filling a car with gas.
Home charging is a separate matter. My point is when you use Tesla’s own numbers the cost to charge an EV at a supercharger is either only slightly below or far, far greater than filling it with dinojuice.
Far far greater? I’m not sure I follow. Sure, on a per energy unit basis supercharging is way more expensive than gas, but EVs usually make up for it by being way way more efficient and requiring less energy overall. Even using the worst case very high $0.75/kwh surge rate means it’s gonna cost you about $0.22/mile for a Cybertruck. With gas well above $5/gal in California, you’d have to be getting over 23+mpg to match that cost per mile, which is difficult to do in a fullsize truck on any type of real world combined driving.
That’s why I used PHEVs as a direct apples to apples model.
Go to the EPAs website and you can get the cost to drive almost any light vehicle sold in the USDM since 1984 25 miles on whatever energy source it can use by entering in local energy pricing. In the case of PHEVs they can use both gas and electricity and they go just as far on a kWh as a pure BEV. Thats why I chose the RAV-4 Prime as the model, at 94 MPGe it’s almost identical to the 96 MPGe Chevy Equinox EV.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=49956&id=47230&id=46078&#tab1
It’s also worth noting regular hybrids tend to be even more fuel efficient than their PHEV counterparts. The RAV-4 hybrid gets 40 mpg vs the PHEV versions 38 MPG.
I currently have a hybrid and have been wanting a PHEV or full EV to replace my non-hybrid, so I know the tool well. I do agree and think people probably do overestimate the savings you’ll get with a EV/PHEV and the tool is great to establish realistic expectations.
Using it shows the breakeven point is actually pretty achievable for the 3 cars you listed. If you’re paying $5/gal for gas (which is probably hard to find in most of California), you’re better off charging if you can get it for under $.37/kwh. If you stick to average gas costs in Cali, you can bump up to about $.40/kwh.
This is all to say, I think it’s pretty impressive for an EV to compete on fuel/electricity costs with a hybrid vehicle, even limiting the EV to some of the most expensive charging options and the hybrid to more favorable ones. Worst case scenario ends up being it costs you about 2x as much as gas; which honestly doesn’t seem that bad since it’s usually easy to avoid that worst case. Add in that there are ways to charge for significantly cheaper (at home, off peak, maybe you’re lucky and can charge for free at work, etc) and the math works even more in EVs favor.
I basically planning to run the Excursion until someone can offer me a proper PHEV/EREV truck.
I’m really keen to see how Ford and RAM’s EREVs work out. I also wouldn’t say no to a BYD Shark or the Chinese market badge engineered Nissan Frontier.
I see no reason to drop 70-80k on a new truck unless I can commute on electrons.
There’s a distinct chance that when the Optima finally goes up for replacement, my wife will pick an EV. As they’re finally in the price/range level that suit her needs. But that’s probably at least another 2-3 years. She’s owned it since new in 2013 and it still doesn’t have 200k km on it, and got a brand new engine at 120k.
EVs are not where they need to be for me yet, and with apologies to the domestic auto makers that I love, I’ll need to see some reliability out of their hybrid/EREV trucks before I give up on a relatively simple iron block V8.
That said, I was looking at commercial electric zero turn mowers yesterday, and came away pretty impressed. I wouldn’t be sad if I never bought another small carb’ed engine again.
YMMV, of course. I’m hopeful on the Ford setup cause their Lightning platform is solid. There’s dozens of them in my city, they just need that range extender.
On the small engine side, as each unit dies off, it’s getting replaced with electric variants. The chainsaw and push mower are next up.
The snow blower will stay gas for decades to come, as I move a LOT of snow, and I have a commercial blower.
You probably don’t own an EV do you? That’s the difference. See- my wife has a SHITTTYYYYY commute. Has to go to the office 5 days a week, 50 miles each way. We got the Equinox because:
A: The lease was at the time dirt cheap.
B: Our electric rate meant $150 a month in charging the car. A lot less than filling the gas tank on the Subaru which we still have
C: She gets to use the HOV lane
After 50,000 miles, no problems with the car. All I’ve done is add washer fluid. And its easy. Come home and plug it in versus needing to go line up at the gas station at 6:00AM and deal with weird ass people that like to hang out there.
The additional secret? Gently used EVS are FUCKING CHEAP! You can go buy a used Cadillac Lyriq for $25,000 when they were $75k new. If you wanna’ slum it, I have friends with used Fiat 500E’s they bought for under $5k.
Anyway its been a easy car to live with. All I’m sayin’
Neither my wife nor I commute regularly, so a high percentage of our miles are on very short trips in town or long road trips. I also live where regular gas costs $3/gallon right now, not CA.
If I still did commute, an EV would possibly make more sense.
As it sits now, there’s no financial case for one, and buying a family vehicle means we need road trip capability, which to me means 500 miles of range at 0F or 5 minutes to add 300 miles of range (exactly the same requirements as I have for a gas car). Solid state is something I’ve been watching for a long time. I have no philosophical opposition to electric for appliance cars, only practical ones.
Should be: 3 out of 4
This supports the concept that most driving is less than 20 miles a day.
Of the other 1 out of 4, 3 out of 4 should be pickups doing real work.
What’s left is enthusiasts.
I think this is about right. The vast majority of people buying new cars can do well with an EV, and an EV will be a better experience for most of them than what they’re buying. I mean, people are out there buying Mitsubishi Eclipse Crosses.
What percentage?
Whatever the percentage in the US that is households with driving age adults who have BOTH access to home level-2 220v charging (homeowners?) for only car applications (level-1 charging may be sufficient for 2-car EV/ICE combo families), and can afford a new car.
If you can only have ONE vehicle, and almost all (95%?) of your trips are within 200 miles a day, then I now will admit that you -can- get by with an EV as your one-and-only vehicle, since the high speed charging options along heavly travelled corridors are now sufficient to make road trips possible (not cheaper, not faster, not easier… but at least possible).
If you need more daily range, or need to tow, than the EV option can make sense as a 2nd vehicle, which still can work out for his/her 2-car families. Simple 120v level-1 charging would probably even work in that use case.
It’s now just about having daily level-2 home charging as an option, as well as the affordability.
Between 55 – 60% of US households live in single family homes with dedicated off street parking.
That’s a larger number than I expected.
I wonder what the historical percentage is for new car buyers who are also homeowners / live where they can access a 220v outlet?
My guess is it’s a bit lower. My thinking is some homeowners may not have the extra budget for a new car and/or maybe more pragmatic with their money and lean towards shopping for used.
Regardless, the influx of gently used EVs coming off of 2-year leases is going to hurt the new EV market for the next year or so. The sales numbers will remain skewed by the influence of those deep EV tax credits that even though expired, still effect the residual pricing, making slightly used EVs a hell of a bargain. Our extended family has enjoyed great new and used EV pricing this past year (CPO 24 Ioniq 6, used 24 EV-6, and a new 26 Ioniq 5) with deeply discounted purchases.
This is a relatively small, so flawed sample size. But on my block we have one family with three brand new vehicles. two Rams and an Escalade. Across the street two new Ford EVs (Mach E and F150) plus a used flex for their kid. Then it’s a mix as you move down the block of brand new cars, and older cars.
I’d say homeowners with new cars is hovering around the 50-60% mark in my neighborhood.
Then there’s me with my decade/decades old cars, always been a non-conformist.
Regarding the charging speed, L1 is fine unless someone averages more than 30-40mi or so a day.
L1 (US: 120v-15amp circuit, 12 amp continuous) is safely good for about 1.4kw. A modern CUV should average 300wh/mi or so (cars are more efficient). Rounding down, that’s 3-4 mile/hour of charging so if the car can average being at home for 10 hours per night it can maintain 30-40mi driving per day on average. If it isn’t driven as much on weekends or has a longer charge window (sleeping in) then it’s a net positive.
Even then, with most modern EVs having 2-300mi capable packs going over that average mileage long-term just means topping off at a DCFC every so often. Pretty much every metro area (ie. where most people actually live) has DCFCs scattered about at convenient locations (malls, grocery stores, etc) so it’s not a big deal to handle.
While 12a charging is possible on a 15a circuit in practice many automakers cap 120v charging lower than that. I’ve heard some that will only charge at 8a (H/K I think), Fords are limited to 10a.
I think it’s very dependent on where you live. In the deep south there aren’t as many options.
I don’t disagree that most could get by with 120v level-1, which I think is especially true if your have a PHEV or an EV as a 2nd car, but if you only have ONE vehicle, and it’s a EV, being able to top-off overnight, even after a 100-200 mile day, is preferred.
Level-2 charging is also slightly more efficient than level one, with less losses. Nothing that would be a show-stopper, but level-2, even if it’s using a a repurposed /shared dryer outlet, I think would make single-EV ownership more palatable. I don’t think anyone really wants to hang around some public charging spot waiting for their EV to charge when they can get it topped off while they sleep or work.
I’m dealing with L1 with a PHEV and BEV right now, and it’s fine, but it’s more stressful than having an L2. I’m excited for the electrician to come this week.
I drive 20k miles a year and use a 110v outlet for my home charging. It’s plenty. Whatever I can’t make up in one night almost always comes back on the days that I don’t drive as much.
TBQ: Maybe 5 to 10 percent. They’re good for runabouts but people want more.
TBQ: If the automakers hadn’t moved upmarket so fast and decisively leaving the $45k compact crossover segment saturated with hardly any cheaper, smaller cars other than the aging Nissan Leaf during the Chevy Bolt’s hiatus, they should be at around a solid 10% in a bad month by now.
TBQ: 106.2% Approximately.
Is it like an old time odometer and rolls back around to 6.2%?
TBQ: What percent should be? What a vague question?
If I was a 2CV fanatic should 100% of the US car market be 2CV’s?
The car market should be based on what people want at the price they want it at. EV’s will come as the price drops and more options become avaliable, no need to rush it.
I mean TBQ is usually vague or open ended so people can make a claim and debate it., this one’s not really different.