Anti-EV idiocy

[Bill906]

I believe her point is, when looking at TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) an EV has a high initial price, which is usually financed, but the rest of the costs are low. But with ICE, the initial cost (part that is financed) is comparatively lower but the rest of the costs are high. Someone with issues being able to secure a loan may be forced to get an ICE even when the TCO of an EV could be much lower.

I'm not implying "right' or "wrong". Just that it was a perspective I hadn't thought of, and found it interesting.

 

[firsttruck]

I live in East Mesa AZ, it is not too difficult to guess her tribal affiliation and news sources so concerns about the environment or macro health concerns are just hoaxes to her.
Since this a Tesla related forum we can understand that change is mostly being driven by Tesla not any state gov't.

So rather than deep state machination it is capitalism that will take her ICE from her.

And it was capitalism that killed the electric car 22 years ago.

Until Tesla's success forced them to respond in the last 2 years, capitalism kept the flow of EVs from legacy auto at a trickle. Legacy auto wasted over 20 years of EV progress.

Car manufacturers always retire classes of vehicles. We don't see much station wagons or sedans as they were displaced by trucks, SUVs and CUVs. The migration to EVs is happening the same way.
....

Like Ford mostly quit making sedan type cars. They now make Mustang ICE car, SUVs, crossovers, pickup trucks, vans and commercial vehicles.

 

[Cherokee180C]

The lying scumbag who is the darling of the nutter alt right feeds his worshippers this garbage:

I like how he says there have been no advancements in batteries which is total BS. Cars driving 750 miles now on a single charge with a battery in the Model S standard pack. This is one of the big reasons I have been adamant that the top of the line 4 motor cybertruck, has to get 160 -180miles 10-80% range while towing a fairly heavy RV as that will typically only be 40% of regular range.

 

[Crissa]

I believe her point is, when looking at TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) an EV has a high initial price, which is usually financed, but the rest of the costs are low. But with ICE, the initial cost (part that is financed) is comparatively lower but the rest of the costs are high. Someone with issues being able to secure a loan may be forced to get an ICE even when the TCO of an EV could be much lower.

I'm not implying "right' or "wrong". Just that it was a perspective I hadn't thought of, and found it interesting.

Exactly.

Things being what they are in the US, having a reliable car is often not negotiable.

The difference between having good credit and poor isn't a matter of 'should you not spend money'. You need that transportation.

Our first new car, a bottom of the line Nissan Sentra - bought when my spouse was working at Stanford on a NASA project and needed to commute two hours daily - cost (total after financing) the same as our Mazda 3 Grand Touring with all the options ten years later.

The two cars had huge sticker price differences, but their total finance cost made them cost the same.

Anyone who says people don't need to finance cars in the US is so privileged the need surgery to remove the spoon lodged in their head.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Another fail of currency markets that amplify the difference between have nots and have more.

There are three main criteria to all lending:
1) Your "Security" that will be held against the loan, and how realizable is it - as in how easy is the asset sold for to pay back the loan
2) your "ability" to make good on the loan via the terms of the contract - your income
3) your "willingness" to pay back the loan - credit history

If you don't have many assets, or much income, or a good credit history you are more likely to default and not be able to make good on the loan by other means, and your interest rate reflects this.

If you have more assets, more income and good credit (mostly because of the first two) you will get a better interest rate, or in this case a more expensive car for less.

Technically though, a higher interest rate makes you more likely to default too as you have less disposable income and are operating on finer margins.

But together with TCO this equation changes and gets worse, in that the lender does not ask for how much the vehicle costs to operate, most don't ask for how many miles you drive either. Meaning that they only factor in the cost of finance for the vehicle, but mostly ignore the total cost of ownership; and how that burdens the borrower financially, which in turn affects your ability to repay the loan.

Really lenders should ask for TCO of each vehicle and expected mileage. The downside to this is that if your milage is too high, they might tell you you can't afford the fuel either, so why bother lending you the money to buy the car? On the other hand if you don't drive many miles per year, your rate of return on the vehicle your financing is low, meaning you are loosing money having a car that you don't use enough.

This transport system model is where dumb is trying to outsmart dumber.

The best solution is to simply incorporate the TCO and loan, and do a per mile cost in the form of Robotaxi. Equitable, distributed transport at the lowest possible cost because of optimized time of use.

 

[SwampNut]

Anyone who says people don't need to finance cars in the US is so privileged the need surgery to remove the spoon lodged in their head.

That's pretty much limited to the true 1%, pretty much everyone agrees you need to finance cars. And I maintain that you SHOULD in most cases. Or at least, historically. One of our cars is financed by choice, because it was cheap, but still smart to finance. Almost nobody is alleging that it's not necessary.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have really hosed their credit, but that has little to do with EVs. They are the credit criminals who are buying at 29% from BHPH lots and there are no EVs in their mix, won't be for a long time.

Not everyone who can afford to pay cash for a car is a silver spoon baby. That's a terrible stereotype. I have a number of friends who are immigrants and/or born poor who worked their asses off to be able to do so.

 

[HaulingAss]

Yep, back in the day I raced motocross, and I would do anything but the transmission on bikes. Now I'm with you, I've found some great mechanics. I pay them to do everything. The other funny thing is I have a 19 year old who loves cars (especially Toyota). He's in the Toyota T-10 program to become a Toyota certified tech. He already knows more about working on cars than I do.

Don't worry, he's still young. Plenty of time for him to grow up and become responsible after Toyota is a shadow of their former selves.

 

[HaulingAss]

People also selectively forget that cadmium and lithium need to come from somewhere. The return for materials mined is absurd on uranium.

Huh? EV's don't consume the lithium, or the other mined metals batteries are made of, they persist indefinitely, to be recycled into new batteries. Once the uranium is split, it's gone.

 

[JBee]

Huh? EV's don't consume the lithium, or the other mined metals batteries are made of, they persist indefinitely, to be recycled into new batteries. Once the uranium is split, it's gone.

Or you get plutonium....lol.

 

[HaulingAss]

A very bipartisan move is to restate the other person's words incorrectly, position them as ethically abhorrent, then attack that. The easiest way to be wrong is to think your party is the clean end of the dog turd. EV opposition comes from people in both parties, for different reasons. Some is true yet the answer is not to stop production, but to figure out how to punish things like child labor and incredibly dangerous working conditions.

True, did you ever notice how the people opposed to EV's because of mining, child labor and dangerous working conditions to supply lithium-ion battery factories don't have a problem when those same battery ingredients go into their phones, laptaps and power tools?

Imagine if they had to use power drills, saws, screwdrivers, laptops and cell phones with miniature gas motors and generators you had to fill up with little gas pumps at their closest fueling station!

 

[SwampNut]

Imagine if they had to use power drills, saws and screwdrivers with miniature gas motors you had to fill up with little gas pumps at their closest fueling station!

You make an excellent point though, the manufactured outrage hypocrisy is strong.

 

[Sirfun]

Another fail of currency markets that amplify the difference between have nots and have more.

There are three main criteria to all lending:
1) Your "Security" that will be held against the loan, and how realizable is it - as in how easy is the asset sold for to pay back the loan
2) your "ability" to make good on the loan via the terms of the contract - your income
3) your "willingness" to pay back the loan - credit history

If you don't have many assets, or much income, or a good credit history you are more likely to default and not be able to make good on the loan by other means, and your interest rate reflects this.

If you have more assets, more income and good credit (mostly because of the first two) you will get a better interest rate, or in this case a more expensive car for less.

Technically though, a higher interest rate makes you more likely to default too as you have less disposable income and are operating on finer margins.

But together with TCO this equation changes and gets worse, in that the lender does not ask for how much the vehicle costs to operate, most don't ask for how many miles you drive either. Meaning that they only factor in the cost of finance for the vehicle, but mostly ignore the total cost of ownership; and how that burdens the borrower financially, which in turn affects your ability to repay the loan.

Really lenders should ask for TCO of each vehicle and expected mileage. The downside to this is that if your milage is too high, they might tell you you can't afford the fuel either, so why bother lending you the money to buy the car? On the other hand if you don't drive many miles per year, your rate of return on the vehicle your financing is low, meaning you are loosing money having a car that you don't use enough.

This transport system model is where dumb is trying to outsmart dumber.

The best solution is to simply incorporate the TCO and loan, and do a per mile cost in the form of Robotaxi. Equitable, distributed transport at the lowest possible cost because of optimized time of use.

Wow, all that for a car loan. If the margins are that close, the institution loaning you the money just raises the interest rate. They are always going to cover THEIR ass.
They are holding the purse strings. It's up to them to figure out how much money they are willing to loan you, and how much they want to charge you. For you the consumer it's a decision of how bad you want the vehicle and how much you are willing to pay in monthly payments.
Like everything in life it's a balance game, sometimes the weights shift one way, and sometimes the other.
The moneylenders right now are starting to tighten those purse strings. In 2020 I bought a Chrysler PHEV that they REALLY wanted off their hands. With good credit and 10% down Chrysler gave me a loan at 0% for 5 years. Good luck to anyone trying to do that now.

 

[JBee]

This is the general problem with letting currency dictate decision making processes. Especially when considering it's illegal for a company not to make a profit.

All it does is promote more currency use, but without optimising for adding actual value to society using the least amount of resources. We need to stop letting currency decide what "profits" us.

The mere fact we all have billions of vehicles sitting around, predominantly parked for most if their lives is...quite frankly, insane.

 

[CyberGus]

85.5% of new and 36.8% of used cars are financed.
https://capitalcounselor.com/car-loan-statistics/

I've no idea how I'll be paying for my Cybertruck. I set aside my "Cybertruck Fund" into a brokerage account in 2019, but it's now in the red. In a downturn, you should invest more, not liquidate.

However, interest rates are also going up. Hmmph.

 

[SwampNut]

The mere fact we all have billions of vehicles sitting around, predominantly parked for most if their lives is...quite frankly, insane.

Self driving on demand is where it's at. Or at least for people with more than one vehicle. Sometimes I want to do something really impromptu and it would be *annoying* yet not impossible with a CaaS model. Yet 99% of the time it would be fine. I mean, I tell Siri, "Start climate control" five minutes before I leave anyway. I could tell it to order up a service car just as well.

Our Smart will probably get 2k miles in a year, possibly less. It's wasteful. Yet we treat ourselves to this luxury for the few times we both need to be out with the Tesla. At least it's cheap to pay for and to insure.

Oh, when we financed the Smart, the loan agent was amazingly clueless and also acted like the $200/mo payment was expensive. She had NO idea that a credit pull impacts your score. Also no idea that multiple pulls for the same thing in a week or two will be counted as one. Amazing.