Why it's going to be some time before I switch to an E.V. { Going to keep my Vintage car }

[CarNucopia]

1 hour ago, TAKerry said:

 

2023-06-18_12-41-39 by Kerry Grubb, on Flickr

Maybe to get this back closer to talking about antiques? This guy attends a local cars n coffee. Had the oppurtunity to talk with him about it a couple of weeks ago. He used 2 fork lift motors, battery out of some kind of chrysler product, and some kind of transmission I have never heard of but my son says its pretty expensive and race guys use them. Guy said it takes a few hours for a charge, runs super fast if he wants to and gets about 80 miles to a full charge. To me its def. about 'what I can do' as opposed to making something that is useful. But then again arent all hot rods? 

 

I have a good friend approaching a years ownership with a tesla and he loves it. He said he would buy another one in a minute if need be. He recently took a week trip to the south and back and said he had a little 'charging anxiety' but overall no problems. I try to talk to the actual owners of ev's as opposed to opinions from speculators. Moms neighbor has a mustang ev along with a lightning. Said the truck has a lot more power than the mustang. Also said he loves both of them. BUT is someone that spends a kings ransome on a new car going to say they hate it?

This topic does relate to antiques because as the old adage goes: "Those who don't learn from history are destine to repeat it"

 

As lovers of old cars, we're accused of letting nostalgia cloud our judgement. Guilty. But, when it comes to EVs, we're of a limited group of people who know the history of the automobile and why certain things fail. The current pursuit of EVs is just chasing windmills (figuratively and laterally).

 

Another reason people like EVs is the purchase is subsidized. Were they required to pay the actual price, not one supported by the largess of governments, profitable ICE vehicles and venture capitalists, they would not have bought it in the first place.

[Restorer32]

On 11/24/2023 at 7:55 AM, modela28 said:

I think GE's info is just wrong.  The stats for 1900 and 1917 can't be the same.  EVs have never, ever been very widely used even going back to the turn of last century.  I'm afraid there are too many people in the media that are trying to put out erroneous historical info today to try to sway the public toward EVs.  If the American people want EVs, then the market place, not the White House, not the media, not bogus climate change propaganda will make it happen.  

In 1920 there were over 1750 electric delivery vehicles registered within the city limits of Chicago.

 

 

 

[arcticbuicks]

$150k to $250 k Porsche type 1960s 1970s

 

[arcticbuicks]

High  dollar daily drivers ....$150k to $250 k Porsche type 1960s 1970s....as it's not worth it to them I guess to convert a cheap classic car

Edited November 25, 2023 by arcticbuicks (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

I did not ask the fellow what he had into the electric el camino but I would think it was a rather substantial investment for 80 miles of cruising at a time!!

 

Many years ago at one of Renningers Mode A shows there was an A all electric. He took the motor out and had a bank of batteries as well as the trunk area. If I remember correctly they were a bunch of 12v hooked up like a scissor lift. This was well before the ev craze going on now.

[1935Packard]

4 hours ago, CarNucopia said:

The important signal in cost is not comparing current prices with beginning prices. What is relevant is costs relative to competitive products. A century ago, the cost of an ICE Model T dropped significantly compared to EVs and steam cars, making them uncompetitive. They were just too complex to be manufactured inexpensively. While the chart you provided shows an impressive decline in battery costs, the rate of decline has slowed significantly. The benefit of low hanging fruit from scale has been realized, as you can see from the line flattening. Even with the illustrated decline, EVs are considerably more expensive then comparable ICE cars. They sell thanks to subsidies. Remove the subsidies and sales tank.

 

The policy towards EVs is economically absurd because they started with goal that doesn't measure the progress desired. Policy aims to raise the percent of cars sold that are EVs. What it should be trying to accomplish is increasing the number of miles driven electricity. The scarce resource is batteries. Policy incentivizes passenger cars which spend 22+ hours a day parked instead of, say, urban postal vehicles. An orthodontist driving a Tesla isn't what will move the needle, it's the Amazon delivery van. Yet we squander resources for people to feel good about their green appearance. 

 

I'm not anti-EV. I test drove a GM EV-1 back in 1999 because I was curious what they offered. I'm anti EV policy because it is wasteful and ineffective.

 

 

I realize you have already pronounced that people who disagree with you don't understand economics, but I think you're unaware both of how math works and the incredible progress in the pipeline coming with new battery technologies.  Better and cheaper batteries that don't rely on the same elements as older batteries are coming soon, and they're expected to further dramatically drop the price of batteries.  It's a central area of industry focus.  So while you look at the curve I posted "flattening" after costs go down 90% in 15 years and you announce the curve is now basically flat, I think what you're seeing is that when costs are down to 10% of what they were 15 years ago, the further drops in costs look smaller on the old chart only because the scale is changing.

 

Look at what the the industry expects for battery costs in the next few years, from a report by Goldman Sachs put out earlier this month: 

 

 

 

 

And that's just the next few years.  My sense from the industry reports is that the expectation is of further extraordinary leaps forward in battery technology. It reminds me of the Model T era, where the prices of a Model T plummeted to a small fraction of what it had been a few years earlier.  Except you'd have to imagine the costs continuing to drop exponentially over time, again and again. 

 

 

[hook]

6 hours ago, arcticbuicks said:

you and i ....maybe left frustrated.....as the rest of the world is happy to adapt and make it work ?

where are you going everyday ....that you need a recharge to make it through a day ?

Why does it have to be everyday? If I drive to Hershey from where I live I couldn't get home without a recharge. And we all know that Herco will install charging stations everywhere at the Hershey event, RIGHT?

[arcticbuicks]

There will be a lot of situations to plan as normal ......if I go to a major event here ,I sure plan to get gas somewhere before or after the event to avoid crowds right at the event ........and maybe few years after there all EVs .....and no gas stations ......something like Hershey may fade away too......or there will become huge EV event to attend ha

[60FlatTop]

In my area a lot of the convenient stores sell gas along with the Lotto tickets, pizza, coffee, subs and other items their business focuses on.

[arcticbuicks]

I would that have been true in the horse days also......as cars came in .........stable ,and horse shoe bracksmith,feed,harness and leather etc........they all had to transition also

[1912Staver]

4 hours ago, arcticbuicks said:

High  dollar daily drivers ....$150k to $250 k Porsche type 1960s 1970s....as it's not worth it to them I guess to convert a cheap classic car

 

A fool and their gold ?  I have a bit of experence in the sports car world. Owned many, worked long enough as a British car mechanic to get my journeyman's ticket. Currently own a Lola T492, and a 1973 Elden F3 series car. plus a Lotus Europa and a TVR 2500 M for road going . In my books the only way to improve a sports car is to add lightness, not god only knows how many hundreds of pounds of battery pack. { my Lola weighs 1300 lbs wet , has 145 H.P. goes extremely well }

 

 

 Just because you can , doesn't mean you should.

Edited November 25, 2023 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[arcticbuicks]

oh nice cars....can you post some pics,a local kid here has a TVR

[prewarnut]

7 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Here is the book to read for the early days when Connecticut was the center of automotive development. I know I have read my copy at least four times over the years.

 

https://www.abebooks.com/Horseless-Carriage-Days-Maxim-Hiram-Percy/31654192899/bd

Bernie, Your book no doubt mentions Maxim's promotion of EV's. Here's another historical relic from his company.

Back on topic, I was in the low countries this spring. There, EVs are used for most smaller delivery trucks and vans (e.g. nearly all Mercedes Sprinter vans are electric). There it works as there are electric-generating windmills everywhere, distances are shorter and "in-town" speeds are low. They are plugging into a renewable grid. Not what we have here....

[1912Staver]

Since moving they are absolutely jammed up in storage at the new place. Spring project is to start to put my two quonset buildings back together that the developer / buyer of the old place didn't want. Let me take apart and move to the new place. The current M is my 3 rd TVR, they all look about the same except color. This one is medium brown , it was the 70's after all. 

 

Here is the F3 car a few years ago back at the old place. Previous owner had fitted full width bodywork. I am putting it back to open wheel form as it was built in 1973

 

 

 

[1912Staver]

Here is the T492. At the previous owners shop, the day I picked it up.

 

 

 

[modela28]

 

"There are companies now converting high dollar classics to EV".

 

Converting a "high dollar" classic to an EV would actually destroy the value of the car.  I can't imagine anyone doing that.  Matching numbers and authenticity are absolutely necessary to maintain the value of any high dollar car.  Replacing the IC engine with an electric motor would significantly affect the value.  The only EV conversions I can imagine would be on cars that are not "high dollar".

Edited November 25, 2023 by modela28 (see edit history)

[arcticbuicks]

i am just looking at these online for interest ......and they drive like a formula race car done with better lower of center of gravity and better weight distribution,faster than any gas car........and waiting lists to get conversions done.........and selling for far higher dollars than originals.......so i guess we are wrong being old fashioned maybe .............gas cars are soon going out like steam cruise liners with the younger generation...........maybe as time goes on a high dollar classic ......will be a EV converted classic........and the gas classics ...worthless......just museum stationary objects

Edited November 26, 2023 by arcticbuicks (see edit history)

[AzBob]

4 hours ago, arcticbuicks said:

i am just looking at these online for interest ......and they drive like a formula race car done with better lower of center of gravity and better weight distribution,faster than any gas car........and waiting lists to get conversions done.........and selling for far higher dollars than originals.......so i guess we are wrong being old fashioned maybe .............gas cars are soon going out like steam cruise liners with the younger generation...........maybe as time goes on a high dollar classic ......will be a EV converted classic........and the gas classics ...worthless......just museum stationary objects

There are still a number of Steam Locomotives operating excursion trains in this country and loved by those who operate and ride on the trains. A few are even "gasp" coal fired.

 

Below, Union Pacific No. 119 at Promontory, Utah 2023

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by AzBob (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

EV's may well be fast.... in a straight line. Around corners and braking, weight really comes into play. There is a reason race cars are feather weights. Weight and horsepower is also a huge factor in tire life. There is a reason I stick to very light , somewhat low horsepower cars. Tire costs over a few seasons can be absolutely staggering for a heavy or high H.P. car. Tires on the Lola last a season, the guys with the GT1 Camaro's , Mustang's and Corvette's use up a set in a weekend. The Lola with a better driver than I am is only slightly slower than a GT1 car despite having 1/4  or less in some cases of the H.P. of the V8 cars.  And overall costs per lap far smaller. I have yet to hear about a light weight EV.

Edited November 26, 2023 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[maok]

6 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

EV's may well be fast.... in a straight line. Around corners and braking, weight really comes into play. There is a reason race cars are feather weights. Weight and horsepower is also a huge factor in tire life. There is a reason I stick to very light , somewhat low horsepower cars. Tire costs over a few seasons can be absolutely staggering for a heavy or high H.P. car. Tires on the Lola last a season, the guys with the GT1 Camaro's , Mustang's and Corvette's use up a set in a weekend. The Lola with a better driver than I am is only slightly slower than a GT1 car despite having 1/4  or less in some cases of the H.P. of the V8 cars.  And overall costs per lap far smaller. I have yet to hear about a light weight EV.

Search for Aptera 

[1912Staver]

11 minutes ago, maok said:

Search for Aptera 

 Interesting concept. And it does look light. I wonder how it would work here in the cloudy / rainy most of the fall and winter, Pacific North West where I live. Any projected cost ?

[ply33]

18 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

 Interesting concept. And it does look light. I wonder how it would work here in the cloudy / rainy most of the fall and winter, Pacific North West where I live. Any projected cost ?

Why worry about cost for something that has been vaporware for many years? If they actually get into production then there will be an actual cost publicly available.

[maok]

22 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

 Interesting concept. And it does look light. I wonder how it would work here in the cloudy / rainy most of the fall and winter, Pacific North West where I live. Any projected cost ?

The first production, hopefully next year, was supposed to be this year, will be priced at us$35k'ish with a 400mile range. They plan to have a 600 and 1000mile range version in the future. Where I live, subtropics' (Brisbane Aust.) I probably will never need to plug it in.

[CarNucopia]

7 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

 

I realize you have already pronounced that people who disagree with you don't understand economics, but I think you're unaware both of how math works and the incredible progress in the pipeline coming with new battery technologies.  Better and cheaper batteries that don't rely on the same elements as older batteries are coming soon, and they're expected to further dramatically drop the price of batteries.  It's a central area of industry focus.  So while you look at the curve I posted "flattening" after costs go down 90% in 15 years and you announce the curve is now basically flat, I think what you're seeing is that when costs are down to 10% of what they were 15 years ago, the further drops in costs look smaller on the old chart only because the scale is changing.

 

Look at what the the industry expects for battery costs in the next few years, from a report by Goldman Sachs put out earlier this month: 

 

 

 

 

And that's just the next few years.  My sense from the industry reports is that the expectation is of further extraordinary leaps forward in battery technology. It reminds me of the Model T era, where the prices of a Model T plummeted to a small fraction of what it had been a few years earlier.  Except you'd have to imagine the costs continuing to drop exponentially over time, again and again. 

 

 

I didn't pronounce anything, I posted a meme. I'm certainly open to being persuaded it's not based in reality.

 

First off, the chart above also shows a flattening curve, so you're supporting my earlier point. The idea that a breakthrough technology is just around the corner that lowers cost is pure speculation. Better batteries are always 5 years away. And the folks projecting this narrative are generally trying to raise capitol, not actually build stuff. If it happens, its a game changer. Right now, nobody is close.
 

It's also a nice mathematical trick to pick a base year for the 40% decline as the year after a 22% increase. But hey, the GS guys do know math...

 

About half of change in Goldman Sachs' prediction is based on a current softening of commodity prices.  If demand for EVs is as proponents expect, demand for "green transition" commodities will outstrip supply. Take a look at what the International Energy Agency has to say about meeting the increased demand. And these folks are pro-EV. 

 

 

Quote

 

While encouraging, practical challenges persist. Risks of schedule delays and cost overruns, which have been prevalent in the past, cannot be ignored. There is also an important distinction between technology-grade products and battery-grade products, with the latter generally requiring higher-quality inputs. This means that even with an overall balance of supply and demand, the supply of battery-grade products may still be constrained. Moreover, new mining plays often come with higher production costs, which could push up marginal costs and prices.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by CarNucopia (see edit history)

[1935Packard]

2 hours ago, CarNucopia said:

 

 

First off, the chart above also shows a flattening curve, so you're supporting my earlier point. The idea that a breakthrough technology is just around the corner that lowers cost is pure speculation. Better batteries are always 5 years away. And the folks projecting this narrative are generally trying to raise capitol, not actually build stuff. If it happens, its a game changer. Right now, nobody is close.
 

It's also a nice mathematical trick to pick a base year for the 40% decline as the year after a 22% increase. But hey, the GS guys do know math...
 

 

I think you're missing the math point, so let me try that one again.  If costs are declining logarithmically, like a certain percentage every year, then it will seem on an absolute scale that the changes are "flattening" only because costs can't ever get below zero.  It doesn't mean that the rate of decrease is flattening, though.  In the case of EV costs, in 2008 the cost was $1400 per kwH; 15 years later, it's about 10% of that. I think that's a pretty impressive drop, especially given the prior stated concern that battery costs are prohibitive.  But of course you can't keep that absolute kWh of improvement (about $1250 per kwH over 15 years) going, because that would mean that by 2038, you wouldn't pay for a battery— rather, the battery companies would have to pay you a lot of money, $1100 per kWh, to accept along with a new battery.   Obviously that can't happen.  If the rate of decrease is the same every year, the absolute amount of decrease will be smaller because the amount you're starting with is smaller.

 

As for for the future numbers being based on just a "mathematical trick," if you don't think dropping from $140 per kwH to the predicted $70 per kWh over a few years is enough, all from $1,400 per kWh in 2008,  I'd ask what other areas you have run into where costs dropped like that so quickly.   If our antique cars were worth 10 cents on the dollar today as compared to in 2008, and were expected to get to 5 cents on the dollar five years after that, I wouldn't be describing antique cars as unaffordable.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by 1935Packard (see edit history)

[nick8086]

😝

[arcticbuicks]

@nick8086 i see your article saying $17 gallon the charge.........the article is from Home Newsfront.........that is the Russia owned propaganda news  site in Crimea.......they do false stories in many languages including english.

 

obviously some can charge at home,some off grid,some a pay or free charging stations......Canada has a lot  free charging stations from very cheap renewable hydro electricity......vs.....other countries at much higher fossil fuel produced electricity

Edited November 26, 2023 by arcticbuicks (see edit history)

[George Cole]

5 hours ago, arcticbuicks said:

@nick8086 i see your article saying $17 gallon the charge.........the article is from Home Newsfront.........that is the Russia owned propaganda news  site in Crimea.......they do false stories in many languages including english.

 

obviously some can charge at home,some off grid,some a pay or free charging stations......Canada has a lot  free charging stations from very cheap renewable hydro electricity......vs.....other countries at much higher fossil fuel produced electricity

The study has been quoted/reported by a multitude of different news sources.  Regardless of who is reporting it, the study is the same.  It was done by The Texas Public Policy Foundation.  Right, wrong, or indifferent, they are not an arm of Russian propaganda.  Here's a link to their 20-page report.

 

2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf (texaspolicy.com)

 

[arcticbuicks]

that looks more convincing ......i see there are a lot of extra USA costs in the supposed $17 a gallon cost,which includes a lot of cost for infrastructure and charging stations and production.......as that is not all in place yet......to be expected i guess.....start up must be very costly with anything this big........also the US is likely and from what i read elsewhere not in very good condition for EVs like many other countries and falling behind.......for many decades the USA has been a hungry mass consumer of the worlds resources .....and burning up more than its share of fossil fuels in the world......and in my opinion it will be the most painful transition for that country .....and for people trying to maintain a lifestyle that they feel entitled to without change  .......for the majority of the  rest of the world..... countries that have never had the luxury of big V8 SUVs with one driver commuting an hour plus to work or to run for a quart of milk,boats with twin engine big block engines,40 foot RVs......etc......i assume think it would be crazy costly to replace and maintain the lifestyle.......

[John348]

1 hour ago, George Cole said:

The study has been quoted/reported by a multitude of different news sources.  Regardless of who is reporting it, the study is the same.  It was done by The Texas Public Policy Foundation.  Right, wrong, or indifferent, they are not an arm of Russian propaganda.  Here's a link to their 20-page report.

 

2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf (texaspolicy.com)

 

George,

That was an interesting link, so I decided to look into what the "Texas Public Policy Foundation" was about. Seems like they have a horse in the race, and looking at where their funding comes from, they might have a good reason to be using Russian propaganda news.  According to Wikipedia they are funded by Exxon/Mobil and Chevron. They appear to be a lobbyist organization.  

There were other sources that supported the Wikipedia information. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Public_Policy_Foundation

 

 

[arcticbuicks]

i think it also comes down to being scared of change ....something new and unknown.....seen as threat.......and i am not defending EVs ...yet.....and i like comfy lifestyle the way it is.....but see at the same time there will have to be change.......how can anyone expect billions of people to each own a machine that weighs tons made of many different materials and burns 10 times the amount of liquid fuel .......as the one quart of milk they are travelling to buy in luxury

[Matt Harwood]

My wife drives an electric luxury SUV (Audi E-Tron). It costs us $37/month to drive it 900 miles. So far, other than a set of tires at 30,000 miles, maintenance costs have been $0. ZERO. There is no question that electric cars are vastly more efficient at turning money into motion than gas cars.

 

Battery life has been consistent throughout with no signs of failure or diminished capacity. We bought it used with 6000 miles on the clock for about 70% of MSRP. It is unquestionably the least expensive car to own and operate I have ever owned, with total cost of ownership less than the Ford Focus ST it replaced, and that car's sticker was 1/3 the Audi's. The Audi is also wonderful to drive, and not just because of the rocket sled acceleration.

 

Are there horror stories? Of course. Are they common? No. Any complex machine will have statistical catastrophic failures like a failed battery pack or a thrown rod. But I suspect on a per-unit basis electric cars are comparable, if not superior, to gas cars in terms of cost of ownership and failure rates. I don't judge all gasoline cars from all manufacturers because I once heard about a brand new car spinning a bearing, why judge electric cars by their statistically tiny failure rates? 

 

Also, the #1 consumers of those Lithium batteries are still the cell phones and laptops every one of you owns. Welcome to the revolution, everybody!

[arcticbuicks]

the title of this thread could not be more perfect "why its going to be sometime before i switch to a car [going to keep my horse]...........if it was pre car days

Edited November 26, 2023 by arcticbuicks (see edit history)

[John348]

27 minutes ago, arcticbuicks said:

the title of this thread could not be more perfect "why its going to be sometime before i switch to a car [going to keep my horse]...........if it was pre car days

 

I guess one can say this topic is "beating a dead horse." 

[1912Staver]

10 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

 

I think you're missing the math point, so let me try that one again.  If costs are declining logarithmically, like a certain percentage every year, then it will seem on an absolute scale that the changes are "flattening" only because costs can't ever get below zero.  It doesn't mean that the rate of decrease is flattening, though.  In the case of EV costs, in 2008 the cost was $1400 per kwH; 15 years later, it's about 10% of that. I think that's a pretty impressive drop, especially given the prior stated concern that battery costs are prohibitive.  But of course you can't keep that absolute kWh of improvement (about $1250 per kwH over 15 years) going, because that would mean that by 2038, you wouldn't pay for a battery— rather, the battery companies would have to pay you a lot of money, $1100 per kWh, to accept along with a new battery.   Obviously that can't happen.  If the rate of decrease is the same every year, the absolute amount of decrease will be smaller because the amount you're starting with is smaller.

 

As for for the future numbers being based on just a "mathematical trick," if you don't think dropping from $140 per kwH to the predicted $70 per kWh over a few years is enough, all from $1,400 per kWh in 2008,  I'd ask what other areas you have run into where costs dropped like that so quickly.   If our antique cars were worth 10 cents on the dollar today as compared to in 2008, and were expected to get to 5 cents on the dollar five years after that, I wouldn't be describing antique cars as unaffordable.

 

 

 

 

I realize bigger vehicles like Mustang E's and Lightning trucks have larger capacity battery's than were common in 2008. But by that formula { 1 /10 th of the cost 15 years later } todays $50,000 replacement battery { straight from a Ford parts manager in a  above post  } would have been priced at 1/2 million dollars ? That seems too high to even believe. Or are battery replacement costs disconnected from the basic $ / KWH ?

[arcticbuicks]

i prefer tesla .....$5k-$20 k battery cost.......and last 300k-500 k ........about 20-33 years at 15 k miles per year use .....estimated by the US dept of energy

[arcticbuicks]

statistics show about 1.5 % of 15,000 EVs......had a battery replacement........most EV batteries have a 8 year waranty

Edited November 26, 2023 by arcticbuicks (see edit history)

[CarNucopia]

12 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

 

I think you're missing the math point, so let me try that one again.  If costs are declining logarithmically, like a certain percentage every year, then it will seem on an absolute scale that the changes are "flattening" only because costs can't ever get below zero.  It doesn't mean that the rate of decrease is flattening, though.  In the case of EV costs, in 2008 the cost was $1400 per kwH; 15 years later, it's about 10% of that. I think that's a pretty impressive drop, especially given the prior stated concern that battery costs are prohibitive.  But of course you can't keep that absolute kWh of improvement (about $1250 per kwH over 15 years) going, because that would mean that by 2038, you wouldn't pay for a battery— rather, the battery companies would have to pay you a lot of money, $1100 per kWh, to accept along with a new battery.   Obviously that can't happen.  If the rate of decrease is the same every year, the absolute amount of decrease will be smaller because the amount you're starting with is smaller.

 

As for for the future numbers being based on just a "mathematical trick," if you don't think dropping from $140 per kwH to the predicted $70 per kWh over a few years is enough, all from $1,400 per kWh in 2008,  I'd ask what other areas you have run into where costs dropped like that so quickly.   If our antique cars were worth 10 cents on the dollar today as compared to in 2008, and were expected to get to 5 cents on the dollar five years after that, I wouldn't be describing antique cars as unaffordable.

 

 

 

Yes, it's logarithmic. (That'll be a helpful tool for me to explain away my own spending reductions. 😉)

 

Thing is, people spend dollars, not percentages. Sure, cutting cost by 40% is nice, but it pencils out to $4,900 (based on current Tesla battery size), which is not enough to bring cost parity with ICE cars. GS estimates an 11%/year decrease. This computes to about 8.5 years to get to another halving of cost. Again, not enough to bring parody 12 years from now. 

 

Another measure of the gap are the subsidies required to sell EVs. It's close to $10K currently, not including indirect subsidies. Even if batteries were free, the need for subsidies would still exist.

 

Another point on battery costs. The US lags China by 30% in cost. Bringing production stateside will erase four years of reductions. And, that assumes all the geo-political barriers are resolved.

 

3 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

My wife drives an electric luxury SUV (Audi E-Tron). It costs us $37/month to drive it 900 miles. So far, other than a set of tires at 30,000 miles, maintenance costs have been $0. ZERO. There is no question that electric cars are vastly more efficient at turning money into motion than gas cars.

 

Battery life has been consistent throughout with no signs of failure or diminished capacity. We bought it used with 6000 miles on the clock for about 70% of MSRP. It is unquestionably the least expensive car to own and operate I have ever owned, with total cost of ownership less than the Ford Focus ST it replaced, and that car's sticker was 1/3 the Audi's. The Audi is also wonderful to drive, and not just because of the rocket sled acceleration.

 

Are there horror stories? Of course. Are they common? No. Any complex machine will have statistical catastrophic failures like a failed battery pack or a thrown rod. But I suspect on a per-unit basis electric cars are comparable, if not superior, to gas cars in terms of cost of ownership and failure rates. I don't judge all gasoline cars from all manufacturers because I once heard about a brand new car spinning a bearing, why judge electric cars by their statistically tiny failure rates? 

 

Also, the #1 consumers of those Lithium batteries are still the cell phones and laptops every one of you owns. Welcome to the revolution, everybody!

Please report back when you've done 900 miles in one day. You have the luxury of owning an EV because you have another car that is substituted for this task. Great for a two car family, but what is a one car family to do? If only there was a single car that could use electricity for short trips and gas for long trips..... 😜 A hybrid of sorts.... 

 

The other thing your example illustrates is the gap between the real value provided by an EV vs. it's cost to produce is even bigger. Your essentially new car is something the market is voting against with its own money. Which means more subsidies.

 

I have no doubt owning an EV can be pleasurable and economic on a personal level. But is your experience really something that can be projected on the larger market? Are there enough suckers to take a 70% hit for the rest of us to buy on the cheap?

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by CarNucopia (see edit history)

[Willy]

Which brings up a question - if you have an ANTIQUE electric car, are the modern charging stations equipped to not charge the batteries too quickly? I understand the older batteries have to be slow charged, with lower voltage.

[arcticbuicks]

the charging stations are not likely set up for antique EVs.......and you would have to do changes im sure.......much like modern fuel in a antique car requires some changes like modern fuel with no lead,effecting valve seats and guides,destroying seals and rubber and carb parts and fuel pump problems