By on January 25, 2022

Ford

And in other news, the sky is blue and water is wet. America is a vast landscape, after all. Eggheads at the professional firm Deloitte have released their 2022 Global Automotive Consumer Study, one which polls respondents from countries around the globe about forward-looking topics in automotive.

One key takeaway? It seems Americans want more EV range than anyone else in the world. A lot more.

Generally speaking, consumers in the States expect the driving range of a fully charged BEV to be north of 500 miles, while people in places like China and Japan are content with a range of half that amount. The quick-minded in our audience will point to the massive amount of land which comprises America, meaning our driving distances are often much longer on average than they are for folks living in countries on the Pacific Rim.

Specifically, the question – phrased as “How much driving range would a fully charged all-battery electric vehicle need to have in order for you to consider acquiring one? – revealed that respondents on this side of the pond want 518 miles of range. Koreans and Germans answered with an average of 397 and 383, respectively. India, Japan, and China replied with sums well south of even those numbers: 277, 260, and 258 miles.

Related to this finding, a full 20 percent of American respondents indicated driving range is their greatest concern regarding all battery-powered electric vehicles. Lack of charging infrastructure was the next biggest hurdle cited (14 percent), followed by price premium at 13 percent. The ability to charge up on the run was a big concern for all regions, with more than one-quarter of respondents in Asian countries naming that issue as their biggest EV apprehension.

Other interesting results to parse from this survey? Americans seem to abhor the idea of a vehicle subscription service, at least compared to drivers in China and India. Nearly 4 out of 5 respondents in those countries cotton to the idea, compared to less than a third of those surveyed in America. In a stat that will surprise no one, personal vehicles are far and away the preferred mode of transportation in this country, compared to about 50 percent in most of Asia and a surprisingly low 67 percent in Germany.

In terms of buying their next car – EV or not – this survey revealed the vast majority of customers (in most countries) plan to hit up a bricks-and-mortar dealer when they need new wheels. However, of those who want to buy a rig online (roughly one-in-five across the board), it’s Americans who seem to most dislike setting foot inside a dealership. Less than half of those people want to acquire their next vehicle from a dealer via a virtual process, and America led the way in citing “Desire to avoid going to a dealer” as the main impetus for buying a car online.

Respondent demographics in terms of age were generally evenly split into thirds (18 – 34, 35 – 54, 55+) in all regions, with about 1,000 people surveyed in each of the 25 countries. Pollsters at Deloitte aimed for a roughly 50/50 gender split when selecting people to whom they asked these questions.

[Image: Ford]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

135 Comments on “Survey Says: Americans Want Big Range from EVs...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    When the respondents discover the factors which reduce range, and the best practices of battery filling and discharging, they’ll demand 800 miles.

    However, asking non-EV drivers about EV charging infrastructure is like asking teetotalers where the nearest AA meeting is located.

    As for the dealer question, most people expect to visit a dealer because they believe it to be their only choice; in most cases that may be true.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      @SCE:

      Agreed, and from the comments here, it looks like people just need to wrap their head around the idea of “filling up” at home every night versus hitting the corner gas station every week or so. They do it with their phones, so it’s not like the concept is completely alien.

      It’s just a different approach to fueling your car.

      I’d seriously consider an EV if I had a garage to “fill it up” in every night.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        For anyone who uses their car primarily as a commuter in an urban or suburban area, having an EV that you fill up at night at home basically means you never have to spend time filling up your car, ever. Saving a trip to the gas station once a week adds up to five hours or so of not standing next to your car waiting at the Irving each year, even ignoring time driving to/from.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      No matter if an EV would be perfect for me (maybe, since I mainly have my daily 25 mile round-trip commute) or not (since I don’t have easy access to an outlet in the garage shared between the units in my condo building, not that I would trust any higher-amperage service into the garage not to burn the building to a cinder in the first place), I would like to have a CHOICE in the matter, and not have it FORCED UPON ME by some faceless, clueless, bloviating bureaucrats harping ad nauseum about something that we won’t be able to do anything about anyway, especially considering that we’ll probably be blundered into getting ourselves vaporized in a few weeks because of the brainless bumblebusses currently at the top of that house of cards!

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        No one’s forcing anything on you, sgeffe. If you don’t want an EV, don’t buy one. There are plenty of conventionally powered cars on the market, and despite the PR BS coming from the politicians and car makers, that will be the case for a long time.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    It’s like the old adage about racing….speed costs money, how fast do you want to go??

    Range costs money, how far do you want to go?

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      500 miles of range under ideal conditions will no doubt turn out to be 300 – or less – in cold weather. The answer – at least for now – is traditional hybrids. A driver with a hybrid was considered forward thinking and environmentally responsible only five years ago. Today, the Greenies consider that person a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. The perfect is always the enemy of the good with this crowd.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “500 miles of range under ideal conditions will no doubt turn out to be 300 – or less – in cold weather”

        That’s no different than an ICE vehicle. My mpg drops is cold weather or poor road conditions.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        OK, so the range turns out to be less than 300 miles, and you can recharge the car every night while you’re asleep. That’s a DAILY range of 300 miles, and you don’t have to waste time stopping by the Kum & Go (love that name, BTW) to fill up. How many miles a day do you drive?

        There are definitely buyers who EVs won’t work for – the ones who don’t have access to an at-home charger and the folks who take lots of long trips, mainly – but I’d say most drivers would do just fine with an EV.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Fortunately, they had the good sense to put a “K,” not a “C,” on the front of that name! Yikes!

          (And who thought “Piggly Wiggly” would be a good thing? I’m sure there’s a story behind that which people not from the area where that originated would get!)

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …hybrid was considered forward thinking and environmentally responsible only five years ago. Today, the Greenies consider that person a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal…

        Uh, no. Not at all. The reality is that each type of vehicle has specific advantages/disadvantages. I’ve commuted in hybrids for years and frankly, that would be my sweet spot if I still had a long commute. And I’m a “greenie”. Then again, I’m a lefty that has no issue with guns, so YMMV.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        How would you know what a “Greenie” thinks? Is it because you are a “Greenie”?
        Or are you a mind reader?

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “It’s like the old adage about racing….speed costs money, how fast do you want to go??”

      sigh. It’s “speed costs money–how fast do you want to spend?”

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    “Survey Says: Americans Want Big Range from EVs”

    — Yet fewer than 10% ever move farther than 150 miles from where they were born. Well within the range of most current BEVs.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Quite a few of them drive farther than that from their homes every year too. I’ve made 5 round trips of over 400 miles each this year, and none of them would have been possible without great inconvenience using any semi-reasonably affordable EV. Either the range has to increase dramatically or the availability of high speed charging does, if not both, before I would consider one. The most expensive car in my fleet isn’t going to be just a commuter car. There’s a lot of flyover country where these things are deal killers, regardless of how far people end up from where they were born.

      • 0 avatar
        SirRaoulDuke

        We rack up a 1200 mile round trip six times a year. That’s not including driving to visit various family and friends while there. I’m not sure where in rural Kansas we would charge our vehicle…I am going with no where being the likely answer, so perhaps we get there (after much inconvenience and time lost charging on the way) but we are not coming back.

        So no, we will pass on an EV.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “Yet fewer than 10% ever move farther than 150 miles from where they were born. Well within the range of most current BEVs.”

      WTF is it with the total lack of imagination here?

      Recently in a similar discussion I explained how I go to the beach, through Deliverance territory across the mountains, and with gas stops it’s a 10.5 hour drive. I explained how I have zero interest in going out of my way to find charging stations and having that turn into a 13 hour or more drive. The response that came back: “how many of those trips do you make?”

      I said, “that’s irrelevant. Ask me how many of those trips I want to give up.” That shut him up.

      I live 6 blocks away from the house in which I grew up. Does that mean I need only a golf cart?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Vulpine – It’s no different than those who feel they need a massive arsenal just in case. why?
      Most won’t travel far enough to use a 500 mile range. For those who do travel long distances, 500 miles in a day is a safe daily distance.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        @Lou “Most won’t travel enough to use a 500 mile range”

        Just screw the ones who do, right? And the problem now is that it’s taking $50-60k to get into one with a claimed range of 300, which in real life is closer to 250, and a lot more people travel enough to need that much range in a day.

        And the difference in the reduction in cold weather range between an ice vehicle and an EV is that the EV already has significantly shorter range than a comparable ice vehicle and the ice vehicle can be quickly refilled at a vastly larger network of refueling stations. But otherwise it’s exactly the same.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @285exp – “Just screw the ones who do, right?”
          That’s an extreme way to label mass marketing. Marketing a vehicle means targeting the largest buying demographic which sits in the middle of the bell curve. Those at the extreme ends of the curve are your typical niche buyers. I’m sure that manufacturers will offer options so those at the fringes can get what they want for a price premium.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @285:

          No one’s saying an EV is for every buyer. That’s why manufacturers won’t replace conventionally powered cars anytime soon, despite the PR BS you hear.

          Having said that, though, if you have the capability of recharging at home, the range issue is a non-issue.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Mike, the ability to charge at home does not make range a non issue, when you run out of range it doesn’t matter where you charged.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            OK, let’s say you walk out to your EV in the morning, which has been charging all night and has a range of 200 miles (for argument’s sake), and you head off for your daily commute, which is 30-40 miles round trip. I’d say the chances of you running out of range that day are pretty slim; wouldn’t you agree?

            It’s rare that I’d drive over 200 miles a day, and I’d say that’s true for a very sizeable chunk of drivers as well. There are people that DO drive more than that, and EVs aren’t for them (at least in their current technological state), but for that sizeable chunk I’m talking about, I think they’d be just fine.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            I’m not arguing that EVs as they currently exist aren’t just fine except for the most extreme commuting. The discussion here is about US market buyers wanting 500 mile range. This is because many of them don’t have a designated place to charge at home, live in areas with scarce public charging, and they recognize that they need a considerable cushion, especially when driving longer distances. If fast and convenient charging was widely available they wouldn’t demand such extreme ranges, but it’s not.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @285:

            I definitely agree with you when you say there needs to be more charging infrastructure.

          • 0 avatar
            tschmit2

            I’m still trying to figure out how being able to recharge at home means a longer range. There is some sort of disconnect in that “logic”.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @tschmit2:

            It doesn’t mean longer range. It means you just start every day with a “full tank,” so to speak. A decent EV will have 200 miles of range, minimum, so that means you have 200 miles of daily range. That’s way more than most drivers need.

            It’s just a different way of thinking about range.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            A few people here are forgetting entirely about the existence of charging stations. Plug the thing in while you take a leak and have a cup of coffee. Big deal. In a few minutes you have added another hundred miles.
            In a few years we’ll all be laughing at the slow, leaky, oil-dripping dinosaurs that people used to drive. The best electric car available now will soon be as archaic as a Model T.

            In a generation our kids will be laughing at how the old fogies used to drive on the ground and couldn’t legally go faster than 70MPH.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    I’m sure most buyers want 1000 miles of range, charging time under five minutes and batteries that cost less than $10/kWh. All depends on how you ask the question, and a whole bunch of unknowns about the respondents ideas regarding electric cars, or cars in general.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      It’s the “three-legged stool” argument, to be sure!

      Quick charging time, with 20%-80% capacity in line with gassing up an ICE, will boil the battery to nothing in 50,000 miles!

      These things still ain’t cheap!

      And you’re not going to get near the range of the most efficient ICE vehicles unless you spend a ton! And right now, the most plebeian car can’t be had for less than MSRP! And inflation is spiraling out of control!

      And what of the folks who don’t have at-home charging capability?! Or just want the FREEDOM of choice? Oh, that’s right..you have no rights!

  • avatar
    MKizzy

    Of course ordinary Americans want big range out of their EVs! I’d personally want the flexibility to drive an EV for several days without needing to plug in.

    It doesn’t matter how plentiful public charging becomes, many people would rather not treat their car like an iPhone and have to think about topping off the battery wherever they go

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      People do that with cell phones? Except for travel, I almost exclusively charge my phone at home, and my car, too.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “I’d personally want the flexibility to drive an EV for several days without needing to plug in.”

      I drive about 30-40 miles a day. Assuming range of 250 miles, that means I’d have to charge up every six days. As it is, I fill up my car about every week and a half…but I have to go to a gas station to do that. If I had a place to charge an EV at home, I’d have a DAILY range of 250 miles. I’d say that works for the overwhelming majority of drivers.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Compared to IC powered motor vehicles, BEVs are still short on range. I’m considering a Tesla Model 3 Long Range which is rated for 353 miles. If you don’t charge to 100% (to protect the battery) and reserve 10% (so you don’t risk having to walk), practical range drops below 300 miles. All of our gasoline powered vehicles (Infiniti G37S, Focus SE, AWD Sienna) are good for a real 400 miles.

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    When someone in Asia or Europe claims they will be happy with ‘200 miles’ of range, I believe they do not understand how EVs work. That range might sound sufficient on paper, but out in the real world you have factors such as weather, temperature, traffic conditions and so forth which affect that range.

    Plus, my driving style, which is admittedly focused on speeding, would quickly deplete the battery of the most modern EV. I am physically incapable of cruising at 130 kph or slower on the Autobahn; those are slow speeds which make me sleepy, even if I just had coffee. On my daily drives on the Autobahn, those fancy EVs, be it a Tesla Model 3, Volkswagen ID3, Renault Zoe or even a Porsche Taycan, are generally driving behind a truck’s slipstream at 80 kph (50 mph) while I can speed past in my 2-ton 2007 Mercedes GL320 CDI 4Matic at almost 210 kph without having to worry about my energy source running out.

    If memory serves me right, Focus/Welt magazine just tested the Mercedes EQS with it’s ‘amazing 700 km range’ and it barely could reach 400 km in winter conditions and under Autobahn driving. 400 km of range is still a feat, but if it were me behind the wheel of that car those 400 km would most likely end at 150 or 200 km max. My point is, for my driving style, I require a vehicle which has a stable range AND which can easily be refueled in a quick and efficient manner should this range not be available. EVs fail here, miserably.

    Under normal driving conditions, the 100 liter fuel tank in my GL320 CDI 4Matic can transport me over 1000 km – and this is a 2-ton full-size SUV. But even when I am driving it in a spirited and sporty manner on the Autobahn, I can still average 700 km of range and sometimes more. As far as I am concerned, Diesel > current EV battery technology.

    I should add that I do a lot of long-distance driving and generally use the Autobahns. Range and quick refueling are important criteria to me. For others who drive shorter routes and for whom time is not important, an EV could make sense. Then again in Germany we do have the highest energy prices in the [Western] world and public charging stations are expensive.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    My objection isn’t the range itself. I generally fill up my current road trip vehicle after around 350 miles of highway driving, which puts me at a quarter of a tank. I can fill up, run in and use the restroom and buy a snack in 15 minutes or less. Electric can’t beat that now. Better yet I can do this in ANY small town in America, no matter how far off the beaten path. I’ve seen convenience stores at crossroads literally in the middle of nowhere. It will be a long time until the infrastructure is there for that.

    Also, the environmentally passionate seem to be engaging in some magical thinking. Lets NOT build nuclear, lets SHUT DOWN coal and natural gas fired plants, lets make EVERYONE buy a CLEAN electric car and everything will be just hunky dory. Worse, they’re incredibly smug about it. If they were truly practical and serious people, they’d be advocating gas/electric hybrids as a transition but I never hear anything about them in the mainstream media even though the tech is very proven and gas engines are cleaner running that they ever have been. When was the last time you smelled a car running rich or smoking at the tailpipe?

    Don’t even get me started on how a forced and fast transition to all electric screws the poor. I have come to the conclusion that our betters actually WANT us to be less mobile as a society. F#%k’em I say.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      All true. The only “good” source of power the environmentally passionate is either solar or wind. Anything else is killing the planet. And yes, the elites DO want a less mobile society. They are actively working to make personal vehicles more expensive, and working to limit easy driving in the cities in favor of bike paths and walking.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “…working to limit easy driving in the cities in favor of bike paths and walking…”

        Hate to break this to you, but if you love cars and driving, that’s what’s gotta happen, and it has nothing to do with climate change – our transportation system is becoming hopelessly clogged. Here in Denver, you could probably build a permanent moonbase for what it would cost to “fix” the highway system. And even then, road-building your way out of gridlock will fail – L.A. is a prime example.

        So, yes, if you love cars, you WANT things like more transit, more bike paths, more walking – anything that clears the damn road of unnecessary traffic. Otherwise, I fear driving may end up so tedious and frustrating that I won’t want to do it.

  • avatar
    Tree Trunk

    Canyonero, remember when Homer Simpson got to design a car?
    Daydream list of features and what is practically possible at a reasonable price does not go very well together.
    When most people have a commute of 20 miles or less it is a luxury to have a 500 mile range. While 100 miles might work with good planning somewhere between 200 and 300 is the current sweetspot for price and practicality. Plenty of range for daily commuting and gives the option of doing road trips with minor planning.

  • avatar
    jimble

    “The quick-minded in our audience will point to the massive amount of land which comprises America…” The quicker-minded will point out that China has a larger land area than the US. But the Chinese, like the Europeans, can take high-speed trains all over the place so they may not care so much about long-distance car trips.

    • 0 avatar

      Jimble you forgot to mention Russia. Neither US or China can match Russia regarding land size or distances to travel. Try to drive car from Moscow to Vladivostok. It is 11 time zones! 11, think about it. Compare that with 3 in USA.

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      Which high-speed trains are you referring to? France has the TGV, the only really high-speed train in Europe. In Germany we have the ICE (InterCityExpress) which more often than not ‘speeds’ at a pathetic, sleep-inducing 120 kph. We are lucky if they can travel at 200 kph at all.

      Sorry, but I like driving my car and will continue to take and drive my car over a train, even if it somewhat makes sense to take the train given a particular situation. I like the idea of being in charge of my own mobility.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Another way to put this headline:

    “Recognizing the major shortcomings with EVs, reasonable Americans want a big range”

    If they are going to refuse to match the refill speeds of gasoline (between 10,000 and 20,000 miles per hour depending on vehicle and tank size) then that has to be supplemented with range. *FAST* EV recharge rates are 80-120 miles per hour. That is pathetic.

    If they are not going to make recharge times faster, then ranges need to double.

  • avatar
    JREwing

    Things not mentioned here:
    – The range between 20% and 80% charge is the most important, as for battery pack longevity (and your sanity) you’re not going to make use of the entire range on a regular basis. So if you take the Lucid Air’s 500 mile claimed range, effectively it’s more like 300 miles of usable range.

    – DC fast charging is hardly slow. The Lucid Air can accept a DC fast charge of 350kW, and can add 300 miles of range in 12 minutes. If you can make it in and out of the convenience store in 12 minutes (including pee break and selecting your next snack), you’re a better person than I am.

    – More plebeian EVs like the VW ID.4, which maxes out at 125kW, can add 120 miles of range in about 30 minutes. Not exactly stupendous speeds, but most folks are going to struggle to drive more than a couple hours before wanting to get out and stretch. It’s not the fastest way to road trip, but for most folks it will be fine, particularly if 95% of the time it does around-town errands and charges at home every night.

    The range problem has become a lot less of an issue in the past decade. Charging speed is also becoming less of an issue with time. The big problem now? Not enough chargers where they’re needed.

    The ones in the hinterlands tend to be slower chargers – 50kW DC instead of 150kW or 350kW. Stick to the Interstates and charging is plentiful. Get off the Interstates and it rapidly becomes a struggle.

    The fortunate thing is that electricity is rarely unavailable in some form or fashion, and with proper planning you can go to 99% of the places you can go to with gas or diesel. I expect the lack of chargers to quickly become less of an issue in the next decade as folks figure out how to monetize them, much as they figured out how to monetize gas and diesel fuel.

    The other big barrier is having charging infrastructure be commonplace at places like apartments and business parking lots. I don’t own an EV now because the apartment I rent doesn’t have charging infrastructure. Those who have to street park can’t really have an electric car unless their employer has charging. Really, unless you own your home, or are rich enough to have EV charging in your apartment, the infrastructure’s not there yet.

    But then, these folks don’t buy brand-new EVs. Homeowners do. And for most homeowners for most trips, an EV is MORE convenient – because in one day they usually won’t outdrive their battery range before coming home and plugging in again. Many fleets have the same exact situation – EVs are perfect for that!

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      Thanks for admitting that EV ownership is nothing but compromises, and for smugly insinuating that of course everyone will be perfectly happy to make those compromises.

      And thanks for pointing out, implicitly but no less absolutely, that EV ownership will involve having a second car that isn’t an EV. Talk about privileged, eh?

      Hybrid and plug-in hybrids are the way to go, period.

      Signed,

      owner of a 2007 Prius and a 2021 Pacifica Hybrid

      • 0 avatar
        JREwing

        If you can only have one car, and it MUST go everywhere that one can find a gas station, your assertion is correct. But a lot of folks will do the same analysis, and find that an EV meets their needs just fine, and better than a ICE car. That will only grow with time as the infrastructure behind electric vehicles matures.

        How many families have two cars, or three? Quite a lot. How many of those cars absolutely, positively, must be able to make long-distance roadtrips anywhere? One, for which a hybrid is a good answer. The other vehicles could easily be full electric, right now, even with the current “compromises” of these vehicles.

        And there’s tons of upsides to doing just that, even if you’re not a tree-hugger. If you don’t have an ICE powerplant, that’s a lot of maintenance and complexity that doesn’t exist anymore. Now we’re down to mainly consumables (tires, brakes, etc). The EV driver never has to stop at a gas station. Never has to check the oil or have an oil change. Never has a timing belt that snaps or a failing transmission or has the engine overheat. Never have their catalytic converter stolen. Never need to get a tuneup. For a lot of folks, the compromises with EV ownership aren’t so bad by comparison.

        As high-tech as EVs are, they’re generally way simpler to build than a vehicle with an ICE powertrain, and have fewer things to go wrong. As a result, in the near future EVs will become CHEAPER than ICE vehicles, without incentives. Batteries are rapidly getting cheaper and cheaper with time. ICE powertrains are most certainly not.

        Why are automakers clamoring to build EVs? Because they don’t have to deal with designing and building ever more complex turbo 4 and 5-valve ICE powertrains with 10-speed automatic transmissions struggling to meet fuel economy and emissions regulations.

        EVs are as close to drive-it-and-forget-it as it gets. Unplug. Drive to work. Maybe plug in at work, maybe not. Go run some errands. Go home. Plug in. It’s cheaper than paying for gas. Plenty of upsides there. If range anxiety isn’t a factor, the EV is simply the better vehicle. For a lot of folks, it’s not.

        For the folks with range anxiety, we still have hybrids. But expect with time and development of EV technology that the additional cost and complexity of a hybrid stops making sense for more and more folks.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @jalop1991 – unless you are in the 0.1%, it’s all about compromise and adjusting to limitations/restrictions. ICE vehicles also have their share.

    • 0 avatar
      haze3

      Current EV’s are great for some cases, trash for others.

      It starts with a use case. For example…
      (1) Commuter car for a multi-auto, single family household near an urban center
      (2) Tow vehicle in a rural area of the West
      (3) Single car condo/apartment household

      Each case is going to have a different problem and range target.

      What is adequate for (1), maybe 200mi, likely doesn’t work for (3), which needs more range for travel (300-400mi?) AND better charging infrastructure. Meanwhile, use-case (2) has no real options right now and may not see anything approach the convenience of their current ICE truck for the next decade.

      A rational answer depends on the capabilities and costs of the EV proposed (e.g. Lightning, Bolt, Plaid S) and the use-case.

      Absolute yay’s and nay’s are just trolling.

  • avatar
    MitchConner

    I don’t get it. Unless you have a really crappy commute you’re not going to drive a ton of miles every day — 200 on weekdays at most — so you can top off each night or at whatever point works best for battery life.

    And if you own or lease an expensive car — planning in advance, renting a hunk of tin for cheap, and racking up the miles on some dopey Nissan, Kia, or Hyundai while accidentally dumping a few hard candies down the defroster vents from hitting the rev limiter, pulling some hand brake turns, or doing neutral drops makes sense. So there goes the need to support a long trip to wherever.

    Why does anybody need 500 miles worth of range? I barely get over 200 on a tank with all the city driving I do. Would love to see a drill down as to why people think that way. It’s as if they’re using their annual worst case scenario, such as that Thanksgiving trip to Grandma in Kokomo as the basis for their daily needs.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Agreed. Most people don’t need that range. I don’t need it for going to work but recreationally I would. I go into the backcountry where 500 miles under ideal conditions doesn’t exist.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        @Lou

        “Vulpine – It’s no different than those who feel they need a massive arsenal just in case. why?
        Most won’t travel far enough to use a 500 mile range. For those who do travel long distances, 500 miles in a day is a safe daily distance.”
        You must have quite an arsenal up there.

        It takes an impressive lack of self awareness to make both of those posts in the same thread. Congratulations.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @285exp – LOL. Spare the Ad hominem. Rebute my comment. I’d like to hear a logical counterpoint,

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            You keep saying things are the same as other things, when they’re not. Having the cold affecting ICE vehicles as well as EVs is not the same, because the problem of EVs already lower range is compounded by the lack of charging options. Comparing people who have a well founded desire for 500 mile EV range to preppers isn’t a serious argument.

            And you self refute your own argument when you say that nobody needs 500 mile range, except people like you.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @285:

            Vis a vis the “temperature affects range” argument, you could also argue the opposite – EVs tend to be MORE efficient when it’s hot, and I’ve found one of the quickest ways to kill the MPG in my conventionally powered vehicle is to switch the A/C on. That doesn’t happen with EVs.

            Both propulsion systems have their advantages and disadvantages. The killer app for EVs is that if you have a garage, you’ll start every day with a “full tank” without ever having to hit the gas station. Plus, if you have solar, you can “make your own gas” and tell Exxon, et al to take their gas price spikes and shove them. That’s appealing to me.

            Again, not everyone can take advantage of this, but many can, and I think as soon as electric trucks become widely available, you’ll see far more widespread EV adoption.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Mike, why would EV mileage be unaffected by ac use, is the power to run its system free?

            All those things about being able to charge and precondition the car are true, if you have the luxury of being able to charge at home, which many people do not. EVs are a fine choice for people who have the ability to take advantage of the things they are good at, while been able to put up with the things they are not. I’m unwilling to spend an excessive amount of money on a commuter car that I can’t use for road trips, money that I am unlikely to ever recoup in fuel savings, unless they succeed in driving gas prices to European levels, which I guess could happen at the rate we’re going. If folks want to buy them, have at it, but I’m not keen on the government dictating that we must transition to EV only, on an arbitrary timeline, regardless of the state of both vehicle technology and the ability to charge them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @285exp – I take comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
            I said,
            “Most people don’t need that range.’

            I said,
            “Most people don’t need that range.’

            I said,
            “Most people don’t need that range.’

            I don’t see ” nobody” written anywhere.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Lou, I see consistency isn’t your strong suit, on the one hand you compare people who want 500 mile range in an EV to preppers, on the other you admit that you would need it too, as multiple others have in this thread. You’re not special Lou, many US market buyers want their EVs to have 500mile range because they need it, not because they’re like nuts who stockpile weapons in case of the apocalypse.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “Why does anybody need 500 miles worth of range?”

      Because recharge times are agonizingly slow, manufacturers stupidly put limits on charging speed for the last 20% but quote ranges using the entire battery.

      EVs are a major step backwards from proper ICE vehicles. They are nowhere near ready for prime time. They are a niche, a novelty.

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      Range is the dealbreaker for me.

      Let’s assume I am driving an EV with a range of 300 km on paper. Under real world conditions that range would never be achievable. At best, perhaps 270 km of those supposed 300 km can be reached.

      Then there’s the aspect of flexibility which for me means getting quickly from A to B and later back to A. Since I live in Germany, I enjoy using the Autobahns and the generally speed-oriented state roads. At 120 kph the battery of an EV will deplete rapidly. I cannot drive 120 kph, it is simply slow. I will cruise at 150-160 kph and faster if possible. Well now back to that EV with a supposed 300 km of range – under my driving conditions it will maybe achieve 150 km max range. This means I might make it from A to B, but from B back to A I need to find a charging station and wait for a sizable portion of the battery to be recharged so that I can speed back to A with my driving style.

      I do not like charging my phone or my iPad, but I can accept it in this case since their battery charge lasts pretty long in the context of what they are designed to do. With an EV paired to my speed-demon style driving style, I will be forced to constantly charge that vehicle and this involves a lot of waiting (time wasting). And this is why range is important. Good range is part of daily flexibility and it also means I can use my time more efficiently.

      • 0 avatar
        MitchConner

        @ThomasSchiffer You make a very good point about quoted range vs. real world range. Appreciate the insight.

        In the States, our mpg calculations were kind of a joke for years until the testing procedures were updated to better reflect real world driving.

        I don’t even know if there’s federal standards for battery range yet. Are there?

        In any event, there’s a massive difference between quoted ranges and real world ranges — and consumers may be inflating their numbers out of concern the real world range will fall short.

        • 0 avatar
          ThomasSchiffer

          @MitchConner,

          I feel that the advertising regarding EVs is very misleading in regards to range and energy consumption. In essence nothing has changed since the advertising for the fuel economy for vehicles with internal combustion engines was also ‘achieved’ under laboratory conditions simulating ‘perfect real world’ conditions which would never exist.

          Lately there is a lot of advertising for electric vehicles on German television and they all pretty much show the same scenario. A nicely-dressed person or couple exiting their fancy futuristic house on a cliff overlooking a beautiful coastal scenery, unplugging their EV and speeding through a forested road into town while they smile all the way. I have yet to see such a home in Germany, where most car owners do not even own a garage and park on the street.

          I do understand the reason why, however. If they showed the reality of EV ownership nobody would buy them! The daily battle to find a charger, the long waiting times (most public chargers here are 22kW), the lack of range and flexibility and so forth are issues which face EV owners who do not have their own garage.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “If they showed the reality of EV ownership nobody would buy them!”

            Tell that to the million nobodys who bought Teslas worldwide last year. In the U.S., 378,000 nobodys bought EVs during the first ten months of 2021. For the record, that’s about 20,000 nobodys fewer than the ones who bought Chevy Silverado pickups.

            That’s a pretty fair number of nobodys, if you ask me.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Mike,

            An EV broke for the first time into the top 20 car models sold in 2021, at #17, the Tesla Model Y. That made up 3% of the total of the top 20.

            Nobody is buying a $55-60k CUV because it makes economic sense, and that’s fine too, they can buy them for any reason they choose. He’s wrong that nobody would buy one if they knew that, but if that was their rationale for buying them they will likely be sorely disappointed, if they looked at the true cost of ownership.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @285:

            The true cost of ownership on ANY $55-60,000 vehicle is going to be high. I mean, most F150s go for that kind of money, and that’s not stopping people from buying them.

            I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Yes, the true cost of ownership of $55-60k vehicle is high, which is why buying a Model Y over a loaded RAV4 makes no sense economically. A RAV4 Prime has 42 miles of electric only range, and total range of nearly 600 miles, for around $20k less than a Model Y, almost double the range, and can be refueled in minutes. The only good reason to buy the Tesla is because it’s cool, not because it’s a better choice functionality or economically, and the hybrid would be a much better way to transition to a pure EV fleet, given the state of the charging infrastructure. Being cool is a perfectly good reason to buy something, just don’t pretend buying an EV is a good financial decision or that it saves the planet much more than the hybrid, that many more people would be able to actually use in their daily lives and afford.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “…which is why buying a Model Y over a loaded RAV4 makes no sense economically.”

            Same case can be made for a Lexus NX, which IS a RAV4 and goes for Model Y money. Tons of people buy these, and the competitive models from Mercedes, BMW and Audi anyway. Doesn’t make any sense to me, but it’s their money.

            As far as why people would buy a Model Y, you neglect to mention that the thing’s wicked fast, and loaded with high-tech stuff (most of which doesn’t interest me, but clearly does interest plenty of other buyers). I’ve driven a Model 3, and there are plenty of no-buy issues there for me (Tesla quality and the stupid dashboard being the top two), but the thing bolts off the line like you would not believe. Same is true to a lesser extent of all EVs. There’s a reason people like driving them.

            In any case, no one said other peoples’ vehicle purchases have to make sense to anyone but them. But a Model Y makes enough sense with enough people to make it a top-20 seller. That’s no small achievement given how expensive it is, and the EV market as a whole.

          • 0 avatar
            ThomasSchiffer

            @FreedMike,

            The typical Tesla buyer is also well-off and most likely has their own home with a large garage where they can charge the vehicle.

            I am not sure what the statistics are for the United States, but in Europe Germany is pretty much at the bottom when it comes to the percentages of the population which have their own home and garages. The majority of Germans live in apartments and park their cars on the street (if they even own one: 83 million people, 47 million registered cars here).

            I myself live on the outskirts of Munich in a large apartment complex. My wife and I park out two cars on the street (the Renault Twingo is gone) and every night we have to cruise around the block looking for a space to park our cars. Charging stations are pretty much non-existent in my area. The only chargers I know off are about 2 km from where I live. They are two 22 kw chargers and they are always occupied.

          • 0 avatar

            They just try to imitate American way of life.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Thomas:

            I appreciate the perspective of someone outside the U.S., but I’m speaking to the realities in our market, which are quite different than yours. In the end, though, the U.S. is the world’s #2 major violator when it comes to carbon emissions, so if we can help address it, I think we should.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      Come on, Mitch, crapping on electric vehicles is all the rage! And if you have never driven one, you know more than anyone else possibly could.
      And while we’re at it, nicotine is not addictive, propane is environmentally friendly, and America is flooded with tens of millions of tie-dye wearing hippies in sandals who want to take your cars and guns away.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    “America led the way in citing “Desire to avoid going to a dealer” as the main impetus for buying a car online.”

    See, I don’t think people realize how phenomenal the coffee is.

  • avatar
    Skippity

    Need?

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    All of the limitations of EVs were recognizable on paper before the first Tesla ever rolled off the line.

    300 miles of EV range turns into 250 miles when you charge to optimize battery longevity, which turns into 200 miles in cold weather, or when towing, or when negotiating mountainous terrain.

    200 miles of range is like having a four gallon gas tank in an ICE car. When I’m down to four gallons of gas, I’m looking for a gas station. So driving an EV is an exercise in continuous range anxiety.

    Adding range to an ICE vehicle is trival–make the gas tank bigger. How much does a gas tank cost? Like $25. Adding range to an EV means a bigger battery, which adds significant cost and weight, which means you need even more battery to carry the bigger battery, and so on. Its a scale problem that again, is obvious on paper. You don’t need to build any EVs to recognize these limitations.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      “Adding range to an ICE vehicle is trival – make the gas tank bigger. How much does a gas tank cost? Like $25.”

      Serious question: If ICE customers want more range (and some definitely do) and if is so easy to add range to an ICE (maybe it is), why don’t OEMs offer larger standard fuel tanks, or optional larger fuel tanks?

      [If you set a button in front of me right now that would add 2.5 gallons of capacity to the fuel tank in my daily driver and simultaneously subtract $85 from my bank account, I would press that button.]

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        Because the transition to EVs with four hour batteries will be a less difficult sell if they can get you used to your gas car constantly needing a refill too.

        Tanks have been shrinking every generation for 10 years by now.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Tanks have been shrinking every generation for 10 years by now.”

          True, but cars have also been getting more efficient for a long time, and when your car gets better mileage, you don’t need to carry as much gas. That saves weight, which also helps you get better mileage.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Honda screwed the pooch on this point when they dropped the Accord’s fuel capacity to 13.6 gallons in order to be able to fit a battery in the Hybrid version AND flop the back seats down on the current generation! Certainly they could have sourced a bigger tank that could fit in the battery space on the non-hybrids!

          Good grief, we’re due for another Accord this year! It’ll be interesting to see if Honda kills it off or soldiers on with the current car given the market and other externalities.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Horses for courses. If you live in Indiana or Arizona and regularly road-trip, then an EV doesn’t make sense as a primary car without a lot more range. If you live somewhere in the DC-NY-NE corridor and generally fly if you’re going more than a couple hundred miles, than it does. It’s been more than four years since I’ve driven more than 220 miles at once, so choosing a car based on what I might literally never do while I own that car would be silly – but other people have a very different use case than I do.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      It seems that widespread power failures are a bit more common on the east coast, lasting sometimes for days, especially in the winter months! What does that portend for EV owners there?

      • 0 avatar
        bufguy

        Cite your source for that statement. Short of natural disasters, power on the east coast is very reliable

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        I’ve lived in the Northeast for most of my life and never had my power go out for more than a few hours. Meanwhile, a friend from work who lives in Charlotte was able to keep driving his Tesla past all the people lined up for gas when the pipelines shut down last year. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but there’s no reason to think this is some sort of achilles heel unique to EVs.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Here’s what everyone seems to be missing in the mad rush to get bothered about EVs and EV range:

    1) No one’s forcing anyone to buy an electric car and despite the PR BS you hear from manufacturers, they aren’t going to stop making conventionally powered cars anytime soon. Relax.
    2) Let’s assume for argument’s sake that an EV “only” goes 250 miles on a charge. But if have a charger in your home, that means your range is 250 miles ***per day***. Every day. How many miles do YOU drive every day? If it’s less than 250 miles, you’d do fine with an EV. Hell, even if the real world range is 200 miles, or 150, an EV will still work for you. If not…well, refer back to item 1). Relax.
    3) If you routinely take long trips, an EV isn’t your best bet right now. Please refer back to item 1). Relax.

    Main takeaway? Relax. No one’s coming for your gas powered car anytime soon, and you’ll be able to buy them well into the foreseeable future. And by the time you can’t, one of two things will have happened: 1) your death, or 2) EVs with longer range and faster charging will be available.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      It’s not surprising the sound and reasonable arguments raised in this article went completely over your head.

      Also, you are not the arbiter of what is ok to discuss and what is not. Telling people to just “relax” when you have entire governments trying to prop up the EV market and saying things like “all ICE cars will be banned by 202x” is a bit ignorant. Even the liberal bastion of crime, homelessness, and governmental incompetence (California) has said they will ban ICE vehicles in 2035. And seeing as they just stupidly banned small engines, where’s the indication that they will not ban ICE vehicles?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Call me when you REALLY can’t buy a gas powered car. Then we’ll talk. Until then, relax.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @FreedMike – “relax” kinda kills his whole reason for trolling.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Same guy who thinks people who take precautions like vaccination and wearing masks in a pandemic are drama queens…

            LOLLLLOLOOLLLLLOOOOOOOL

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Call me when you REALLY can’t buy a gas powered car. Then we’ll talk. Until then, relax.”

          So are you calling the political dictators that you idolize liars?

          “Same guy who thinks people who take precautions like vaccination and wearing masks in a pandemic are drama queens…”

          Yep. The fact they don’t work (vaccines never slowed the spread, masked states have a higher rate of infection than unmasked states) and the fact that you are that afraid of cold symptoms that has a 99.997% survival rate, I’d say “drama Queen” is being charitable.

          But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to stop you from looking like an utter fool. Where I have an issue is people like you pushing your fear mongering and hysteria on me. I’m not afraid of cold symptoms. I’m not putting my life on hold because of a runny nose. And I also don’t trust the government. They have lied to us throughout this entire plandemic. And all the so-called conspiracy theories that you would ridicule people for have all come true. There’s no reason to trust the government and anyone that does needs to be in an institution

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Political dictators”…

            Where’s my smelling salts? I feel faint.

            Like I said…call me when you really can’t buy a gas powered car anymore. I’ll probably be dead by then, which means I’ll never have to have a phone conversation with you. Not much of a loss.

            Until then, though…relax.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Like I said…call me when you really can’t buy a gas powered car anymore. I’ll probably be dead by then, which means I’ll never have to have a phone conversation with you. Not much of a loss.”

            Yes we know you have an anaphylactic reaction when the truth is presented to you. Because of that I’d never call you.

            But you are deflecting. We have had state and world governments commit to banning ICE vehicles (30 governments by 2030-2035) and you are telling me to dismiss the governments statements.

            Aren’t you the one who blindly trusts and believes the government? How could infer that governments aren’t to be trusted? I mean with that kind of logic imagine a government forcing people to inject themselves with a rushed, experimental, and failed substance? I’d imagine you’d be carrying a torch against that.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “But you are deflecting. We have had state and world governments commit to banning ICE vehicles (30 governments by 2030-2035) and you are telling me to dismiss the governments statements.”

            Oh, gosh, 30 governments! I mean, if Country XYZ bans ICE cars, the rest of the world MUST follow. Right?

            Wrong. Last I checked, this country sets its’ own laws.

            I think the solution to your problem is clear: don’t live in any of the 30 countries that are theoretically banning ICE cars.

            And let me know when the United States government has actually done so too. Then we’ll talk. Like I said…it’ll be a while.

            Until then…relax.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “Call me when you REALLY can’t buy a gas powered car. Then we’ll talk.”

          Call me when climate change is a real problem. Then we’ll talk.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “Call me when climate change is a real problem. Then we’ll talk.”

            Regardless of what’s causing climate change, it’s here and it does cause problems. I had office space within view of Boston’s Long Wharf for years and would always go down there for lunch. Long Wharf was built in 1710 and well above any high tides. When I worked down there, no matter what the height of the tide, it was above water. Now, sea levels are high enough that on the highest tides, it’s under water. Really weird and kind of scary to see.

            Along the New Hampshire seacoast, there are saltmarshes that during the highest tides, come up and flood roads where I don’t remember there being flooding in the past.

            Sure, there is debate about what is causing global warming, but it is happening and causing problems. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @mcs:

            He knows.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Call me when climate change is a real problem. Then we’ll talk.”

            Well there is that. All of this EV nonsense is predicated on “man made global warming” (also how unwoke is the term “man-made”?) yet it’s simply not happening. It’s never been proven and despite saying “the science is settled” they have to keep moving the goalposts to maintain the fear. They have been saying since the 70’s that we had 10 years left or utter devastation will set in. Here we are 50 years later and doing just fine.

            If global warming was actually a problem, they wouldn’t build condos all along the coasts. If global warming was actually a problem, the Obamas wouldn’t have bought ocean front property on Martha’s Vineyard. If global warming was actually a problem, governments wouldn’t be pushing EVs which are amazingly damaging to the planet.

            It’s all a lie…just like the current plandemic.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        because that would be extremely stupid and you know that.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @EBFlex it appears obvious that you do not pay much attention to the weather. Just call your insurance company and ask them about why their rates are increasing dramatically. Flood and wildfires are occurring in numbers that are well beyond their actuarial predictions, based on long term weather records. And of course we all know that man made occurrences/events/activities can and have influenced weather. Examples include the ‘killer’ London fogs, the smog alerts in large cities, acid rain, floods/avalanches caused by deforestation, and the Dust Bowl which was accelerated/influenced by poor plowing/planting techniques.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            He’s a troll.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “@EBFlex it appears obvious that you do not pay much attention to the weather. Just call your insurance company and ask them about why their rates are increasing dramatically. Flood and wildfires are occurring in numbers that are well beyond their actuarial predictions, based on long term weather records. And of course we all know that man made occurrences/events/activities can and have influenced weather. Examples include the ‘killer’ London fogs, the smog alerts in large cities, acid rain, floods/avalanches caused by deforestation, and the Dust Bowl which was accelerated/influenced by poor plowing/planting techniques.”

            Absolute nonsense. Why are those same insurance companies insuring buildings built 100′ from the ocean?

            Further, do you have any idea how old the planet is? You think 150 years of record keeping is a good yardstick to predict the climate? Do you think it’s a good idea to make policy on 0.0000033% of the Earth’s history?

            The dust bowl had nothing to do with the exhaust of ICE engines. It was a drought. Those happen. Just like floods happen, and fires happen, etc.

            You also fail to address the spectacular failure of our government to use fear to get people to submit to their agenda. Every single climate prediction made has not come true. Yet every weather event, whether it be a storm or whatever, is blamed on global warming these days.

            The extreme cold coming to Florida? Global warming. If it rains too much? Global warming. Too dry? Global warming.

            It’s all nonsense. Until you can answer the two very simple questions below, the entire concept of man made global warming is absolute BS.

            1. What is the temperature supposed to be today
            2. At what point in history was our climate “right”?

            Or just take the lazy way out that absolves you of all critical thought and call me a troll. No skin off my back.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    The infrastructure for gas/diesel does exist. But creating and maintaining it is actually more expensive and intrusive than a similar infrastructure would be for electrical charging.

    Petrol/gas has to be mined, transported, refined, then transported again to gas stations. These require large underground tanks. Then fuel pumps. There are rules regarding the safe handling of gas/petrol/diesel. And the environmental costs of removing the tanks if a station is closed/relocated.

    And yes ICE vehicles have range anxiety. You do have to drive to a station that is open and has fuel. We are just used to all of that.

    Meanwhile the electrical grid exists just about everywhere. In theory charging stations could be added to every lamp post with an electrical light. Every home/residence and workplace already has access to the electrical grid.

    And electricity does not have to be stored in tanks, or transported in tankers.

    So theoretically when speaking of infrastructure or accessibility, electricity is superior.

    Which is why our homes use electrical rather than gas lighting.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “In theory charging stations could be added to every lamp post with an electrical light.”

      You clearly don’t know much about electrical power distribution.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        You could put a charger on every pole, getting the power to them is a different story.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Enough to understand the power grid and how easy it is to place transformers in neighbourhoods. Which you may not seem to understand. But then I am responsible for the maintenance of a generator at one of our large manufacturing facilities and therefore work closely with the local power authority. Those whose allegiance to Big Oil remains unquestionable are like someone in an abusive relationship who seem incapable of contemplating that a better relationship is possible.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    “Survey: Americans Want Free Money and Ponies.”

    Right now the EV market is still a bit of a jumble and not really decipherable for the average shopper. OEMs are facing huge cost disparities and some of them are also pricing below cost. But eventually the market will shake out a bit and become more organized. And when it does the range vs. cost tradeoff is going to become very clear.

    We’re going to have two different classes of EVs: those designed strictly around a daily commuting/errands use case, with 150-200 miles of range, and those designed to allow for long trips, with 400+ miles of range and the best fast-charging tech available. Obviously the cars in the first category will be significantly cheaper for similar size and feature content, with the tradeoff being that using them for road trips is more painful. That’s the sort of tradeoff consumers learn their way around.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    Meanwhile, my Homeowners’ Association recently enacted a rule banning condo owners from charging electric vehicles. It’s not unreasonable; they don’t want power cords running across the sidewalks.

    No public charging infrastructure can make up for the large percentage of Americans who are unable to “just top off at home every night”.

    Meanwhile, it takes me 10 minutes once a month to top off my 34 gallon gas tank. Americans want convenience, and I am one of them.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’m sure some clever company could figure out how to install a charger in the front lawn that would solve that issue. If enough people in your neighborhood want to charge up, the HOA will change the rule.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      @Eggsalad you and most of the rest of us have come to accept the current system as convenient when it is not. You have to drive to a station to fuel up. You have to stand there while your vehicle is refueling. Gas stations take up considerable real estate. Their holding tanks are prone to leaking, which creates expensive clean-up. The fuel has to be transported to them in large trucks.

      We accept it because we are use to it.

      In theory every home, and parking spot/area could have an electric charge station. The electrical grid runs throughout nearly every subdivision/neighbourhood.

      In your situation, in theory chargers could be placed curbside. There are probably either underground or above ground electrical wires right there, already.

      And then you would no longer have to drive to, stop and and start around and refuel. Instead your vehicle is recharging while you are working, visiting or sleeping.

      So in theory electrical is far more convenient.

      Remember that there was resistance to converting from gas lights to electrical lights.

      That the British Navy originally resented being forced to convert from coal to petrol/diesel engines.

      But each occurred. And in retrospect offered considerable benefits.

      But as previously stated, I view electrical vehicles as a stopgap technology.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You’d think a condo facility could upgrade to covered parking. My god, most of the cheap apartments I rented had it. With lighting too!

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Where do you shop, and do you drive there? You should be able to fast-charge there without a separate stop at a gas station. I think that’s the future for people who don’t have residential charging.

      (And, also, over three-quarters of Americans live in single-family houses, so a lot of electrification can happen even without a single apartment/condo dweller switching.)

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        If a business thinks it’s in their best interest to install fast chargers to attract customers, I’m sure they will. I’m not expecting a mad rush of them doing so.

  • avatar
    tschmit2

    Let’s face it, recharging time for ANY EV should be no more than 10 minutes. A short range should also equal a short recharge time, with 10 minutes being the absolute max. And that 10 minutes should equate to some range which is FAR GREATER than any EV currently being sold.

  • avatar
    mikedt

    What’s the saying…something like…Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance and Americans think 100 years is a long time.

  • avatar

    I very occasionally do a 1000+ mile drive in about 16 hours. I need a car that can do that. Spending hours in the drive waiting for charging is not gonna make it.

    I’ve always wondered why the manufacturers (or even third party companies) don’t make a little range extending trailer with a 25 hp gasoline engine and generator that can recharge the car while in motion. One could rent the trailer when needed or buy one and only hook it up for long trips. Would make buying a car with much more limited range easier (and cheaper with smaller battery) and yet have the long range when needed. When such an option is available I’ll be in line for an EV.

    • 0 avatar
      haze3

      Use-case = occasional long-haul.

      It’s solvable with a multi-car household (take the ICE for long haul). Doable and improving with the EV, for most destinations, anyway.

      I get the reluctance, though. ICE is still advantaged, generally, for long haul.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “Use-case = occasional long-haul.

        It’s solvable with a multi-car household (take the ICE for long haul). Doable and improving with the EV, for most destinations, anyway.

        I get the reluctance, though. ICE is still advantaged, generally, for long haul.”

        Do you think it is better for the planet to own two cars or one single car that can do it all?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      1,000 + miles in 16 hrs. That’s an average of 62.5 miles per hour. Why would you need to do that? There are reasons why long haul truckers are not allowed to be behind the wheel that long.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Lou, the EV Cannonball record is 42 hours and 17 minutes. That’s 2,906 miles. So, 1000 miles can be done in 14.5 hours based on that. I think he’d be better off with an EV that could cut a couple of hours off the total time. The length of the charging stops was interesting. Usually about 18 minutes. The top speeds couldn’t have been too high since you’d kill efficiency.

  • avatar
    M1EK

    Likewise, gas cars failed when it became clear that some Americans had a self-declared requirement to be able to fill up their horse on terrain that an automobile could not navigate.

  • avatar
    6-speed Pomodoro

    I’ve never owned a car that was younger than 5 years old. I’m more concerned about how much range is left after 5 years. Or after 10.

  • avatar
    AutoPatriot

    Personally, I feel like it would help for EVs need to be thought of range similar to a cell phone.
    Simply change the data we use:
    from
    charge time and miles till empty
    To
    Charge time and Hours until device is empty.

    Regardless of miles driven. Forget about that hell without oil changes does mileage matter?or Tire maintenance? Yeah right Ha.

    To me that is a major factor not included in discussion like that story posted here about winter nightmares.

    How long can the EV idle? How much Do miles driven affect idle time? Once this is understood many Americans might have a better idea to get them or not.

    It could look Something like this:
    NEW 2023 EV SUV 1-4 hour charge/36 Hours.

    All miles aren’t the same so if manufacturers could formulate a new way to show us range without miles driven it might work. Might doom them.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “How long can the EV idle? How much Do miles driven affect idle time? Once this is understood many Americans might have a better idea to get them or not.”

      They don’t idle – when the car’s at rest, the motors aren’t turning, and the accessories are all run off the battery.

      I think you’re right, though – consumers really don’t know enough about these vehicles to figure out of they’re right for them or not. That’s mainly because the best selling EVs are all Teslas, and most consumers can’t afford one; meanwhile, the more affordable ones (think Bolt, Leaf) are dorky eco-mobiles that don’t appeal to a wide cross section of buyers. As a result, most car shoppers have never really looked at an EV.

      I think that will change with the advent of electric trucks, which are right around the corner. And if the manufacturers selling them are smart, they’ll emphasize the “normality” of living with them, and using them.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “I think you’re right, though – consumers really don’t know enough about these vehicles to figure out of they’re right for them or not. ”

        Completely wrong, yet again.

        This survey shows that consumers are acutely aware of the major shortcomings with EVs. EVs are a substantial step backwards from ICE vehicles. If EVs could even remotely match the range and refill times of an ICE vehicle (which can refill at 15,000+ miles per hour) the adoption would be much greater (despite being amazingly more harmful to the planet than ICE vehicles).

  • avatar
    Skippity

    If the goal is reduce emissions and save resources all cars should be much smaller, much lighter, much slower. Won’t happen without regulation.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      In the EV world, competition is going to make them lighter. Lighter batteries lighten up the vehicle giving more range from less cells in the vehicle. Less cells for a given range means lower costs for the battery. Using a smaller pack means a car can charge to full capacity and full range quicker. For example, Teslas 4680 batteries are 15% lighter. It’s going to be interesting to see how much lighter the Austin produced 4680 structural pack Model Ys are over the previous version.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “If the goal is reduce emissions and save resources all cars should be much smaller, much lighter, much slower. Won’t happen without regulation.”

      That’s not the goal. EVs are much worse for the environment than ICE vehicles. Not just in the manufacturing process, but usage and disposal. Just because the exhaust pipe isn’t attached to the car doesn’t mean it’s zero emission.

      • 0 avatar
        M1EK

        Tell me you work for Exxon without telling me you work for Exxon

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I don’t work for Exxon and I am inclined to believe and agree with everyone in this thread.

          I will add:

          @Skippity

          Reducing emissions in USDM stopping being a goal by the 90s, and the truth is it was wildly successfully. I read a CARB whitepaper which explained by I believe 1992 CO2 emissions were reduced 94% and NOx something like 80% in the LA Basin since 1975 (the majority of remaining NOx being attributed to ships). CARB should have been given an award for its success and disbanded, but of course it was turned into a weapon to project political power. Everything since has been simple fraud, remember “Earth has a fever” from the erstwhile VP Gore? Al was long the Chicago Climate Exchange which would have made him a billionaire:

          “Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

          Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed.”

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/?sh=4cbaf48632dc

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

          Yup Al is a complete and total fraud, as is their global warming/Earth worship/emissions control communism – yes it is communism because communism in practice is about ***control***.

          Aside from further control, part of EV may be there are not enough resources for Asia, Africa, and the subcontinent to live Western lifestyle which of course they aspire too. FOAD seems to be the correct response to that quandary but it seems our social [not] betters are going the opposite direction based on more recent events.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • JMII: 3,900lbs? yep, batteries are heavy. Why does it have a tunnel in the back? Are the batteries there instead of...
  • Lou_BC: @285exp – where did I defend his comments? My deliberate misspelling “freedumb” would...
  • FreedMike: “And how much lithium is there on the planet?” Turns out there’s a crap ton of it right...
  • FreedMike: Damn, Chris, I suggested this very story idea to Tim a few days ago! Good, honest assessment about the...
  • tonyd: Fred i am 73. You don’t need to wait. My 2021 ford escape PHEV was 33,500 minus 6400 fed tax credit...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber