Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

QrizB said:

Thank you everyone for doing these calculations.

It will be interesting in 3-4 years when the current crop of PCP/PCH cars show up in the used market and we see just how strong EV residuals are (or aren't).

Totally. In the US, the concerns over GM and Ford, is that the residual values of the ICEV's coming off lease could be too low, and have a massive impact on their profitability. Given their current huge debt loads, and the need to invest many $10bn's into BEV and battery production, the timing is not good. Also, since they won't be able to up the lease cost (per month) of their ICEV's to cover this problem, as nobody would then buy them, the problem looks like it could be devastating for them both.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

QrizB said:

Thank you everyone for doing these calculations.

It will be interesting in 3-4 years when the current crop of PCP/PCH cars show up in the used market and we see just how strong EV residuals are (or aren't).

Totally. In the US, the concerns over GM and Ford, is that the residual values of the ICEV's coming off lease could be too low, and have a massive impact on their profitability. Given their current huge debt loads, and the need to invest many $10bn's into BEV and battery production, the timing is not good. Also, since they won't be able to up the lease cost (per month) of their ICEV's to cover this problem, as nobody would then buy them, the problem looks like it could be devastating for them both.

Is that actually fact or just conjecture? I note that you didn’t quote a source. I have read a lot of stories like that but generally they are from sources promoting the growth of EVs, rather than objective articles in the business press. 

Edit: I came across this

GM, Ford Stocks Are Looking Better Because Car Prices Are Strong

Higher new-car prices are good for any auto maker, but not just because manufacturers can sell their vehicles for more. Rises in new-car prices mean used vehicles are worth more. Both companies’ financing units benefit if residual values of cars coming off lease are higher.

Target prices have been rising for both stocks across the Street this year. The average call on Ford stock has gone from about $9 to $15 a share. GM stock’s average target price has gone from about $52 to $72.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/gm-ford-stock-car-prices-rising-51624380759

Edit

There is something here on the story but most of it is behind a paywall

Ford Credit, GM Financial eye residual value risk amid shift to EVs

Despite a likely influx of electric vehicles to the market within the next decade, OEMs do not believe the change will negatively impact residual values on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.

https://www.autofinancenews.net/allposts/risk-management/ford-credit-gm-financial-eye-residual-value-risk-amid-shift-to-evs/

QrizB

When NOFX wrote "Dinosaurs Will Die" 20 years ago they were talking about the music industry, but it seems to have survived. Maybe GM and Ford will too.

(Lyrics and video for anyone who's interested. Guitar tab if you're really keen!)

JKenH

On the theme of EV vs ICE costs I came across this. The discussion about which has the cheaper TCO has to be more nuanced. It isn’t black and white. As this article shows the age of an EV has an impact and so does the pattern of use. If you buy an EV as a low mileage driver it is going to take longer to recoup the additional purchase cost with fuel savings.

NEARLY-NEW ELECTRIC CARS COST MORE TO RUN THAN PETROL AND DIESEL

Ian Plummer (pictured below), commercial director of Auto Trader, said electric vehicles (EVs) bought used but under one year old – former showroom demonstrators, for example – work out £7,000 dearer than petrol or diesel equivalents over three years and 30,000 miles, when the total cost of ownership (TCO) is considered.

However, electric cars bought new or at three years old are cheaper in terms of TCO than petrol or diesel models over three years and 30,000 miles, with a saving of £1,000. That rises to £1,500 and £2,000 for four- and five-year-old cars, according to the Auto Trader data.

“Overall, the TCO of EVs does get nearer to parity with petrol or diesel cars over time, and [savings] are equal for brand new cars and for older used cars.

“But applying the TCO logic to younger used cars doesn’t make a cost equation that stacks up for buyers. Total cost of ownership of one or two year old vehicles is still around 30% higher than their petrol or diesel equivalents.”

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/business/nearly-new-electric-cars-cost-run-petrol-diesel/

Grumpy_chap

Martyn1981 said:

I'm sure your numbers above are reasonable, but I would still disagree at the comparison, given that the TM3 is a performance vehicle, and the Lexus certainly isn't, plus of course the fact that BEV's bring a green and ethical argument to the party, whereas ICEV's and 'self charging hybrid's' don't. These concerns were heightened by the fact that you kept trying to introduce the TM3 LR into the comparison, which adds a tonne more power and AWD, without changing the Lexus model you were making the comparison too. If you move to more powerful and or AWD Lexi, or look to lower priced BEV's more comparable to the ES 300, then you don't benefit from the cost differential.

I am not sure that the TM3SR is a performance vehicle.
Certainly, the TM3SR used in the comparison does not have AWD.

I agree the acceleration is far higher with the TM3SR than any regular ICE, but that is a function of how the torque is delivered differently by an EV compared to an ICE.  Even the Kia eNIRO 64kWh does 0-60 in under 7.8 secs, which is fast by ICE standards.  I don't think that means the eNIRO is automatically a perfomance car.  The Focus ST is available in a version that is only 0.2 sec faster.

My reason for introducing the TM3LR is that, if I purchased one, to meet my daily commute (as was before COVID), I'd need the range to do the round trip and avoid charging at high cost on the motorway to get home.

Martyn1981

Grumpy_chap said:

Martyn1981 said:

I'm sure your numbers above are reasonable, but I would still disagree at the comparison, given that the TM3 is a performance vehicle, and the Lexus certainly isn't, plus of course the fact that BEV's bring a green and ethical argument to the party, whereas ICEV's and 'self charging hybrid's' don't. These concerns were heightened by the fact that you kept trying to introduce the TM3 LR into the comparison, which adds a tonne more power and AWD, without changing the Lexus model you were making the comparison too. If you move to more powerful and or AWD Lexi, or look to lower priced BEV's more comparable to the ES 300, then you don't benefit from the cost differential.

I am not sure that the TM3SR is a performance vehicle.
Certainly, the TM3SR used in the comparison does not have AWD.

I agree the acceleration is far higher with the TM3SR than any regular ICE, but that is a function of how the torque is delivered differently by an EV compared to an ICE.  Even the Kia eNIRO 64kWh does 0-60 in under 7.8 secs, which is fast by ICE standards.  I don't think that means the eNIRO is automatically a perfomance car.  The Focus ST is available in a version that is only 0.2 sec faster.

My reason for introducing the TM3LR is that, if I purchased one, to meet my daily commute (as was before COVID), I'd need the range to do the round trip and avoid charging at high cost on the motorway to get home.

Yeah, it's hard to know what the best description is, but I haven't described the eNiro as a performance car. The TM3 isn't a performance BEV, but compared to the Lexus it is a performance vehicle, since you'd have to spend an awful lot more money on a Lexus to get that kind of power. Crucially (and as you mention) the torque delivery from BEV's makes them so much easier to drive, and they don't really care about hills. Obviously you don't need to drop gears either to raise the torque, like you do in an ICE, since the BEV is always in high torque 'mode' ..... and it doesn't have gears.

I get the point about longer range for the TM3LR, but the SR+ has around 250 miles now, so how much of your daily commute would need to be from superchargers? But for most people, not just yourself, or any specific edge cases examples, in a comparison, the SR+ would have more than enough power and range.

Grumpy_chap

Surely the TM3, or any EV, only achieves the silly fast acceleration at the expense of rapidly reducing range.  The same laws of physics apply as for an ICE.  Impact of reducing range on an EV is more significant than an ICE.

Most buyers of cars are not ever going to drive at peak acceleration or peak speed - those that wish to won't buy the TM3SR or the Lexus but the TM3Performance or the BMW M5.

The logical "converter" to EV seems to me to be someone that was previously tending towards the "hypermiler" club in the first place.

You are continuing to avoid where the initial extra outlay in capital price (or monthly PCP >£100 more) finally ends up - someone has to carry that depreciation.  

Martyn1981

QrizB said:

When NOFX wrote "Dinosaurs Will Die" 20 years ago they were talking about the music industry, but it seems to have survived. Maybe GM and Ford will too.

(Lyrics and video for anyone who's interested. Guitar tab if you're really keen!)

Oh I like that!

Ironic that this time the dinosaurs may die due to the end of the ICE age.

In reality, I expect Ford and GM (possibly Stellantis (US)) may be too big to fail. The recent EV event at the Whitehouse that excluded Tesla, but promises lots of extra subsidies for cars made by US companies who are unionised, was fascinating. The fact that Ford and GM 'aspire' to reach 40-50% BEV/PHEV by 2030, if they get enough support from the Federal Gov, tells you a lot. They still haven't woken up to the danger.

Those companies could see massive reductions in sales by mid decade, especially Ford once F-150 buyers start to test the F-150 Lightning, as it seems to be an excellent vehicle, and a great price. But with production targets of ~10% of F-150's being BEV's by 2024 (following their recent doubling of targets in Aug), the loss of sales from customers putting off purchases could be devastating.

The good news though for the legacy automakers is we keep seeing the same news stories about how they are ramping up EV production, or ramping up investment in batteries. I suspect that will be the theme of most news articles throughout this decade as they start to panic and pivot.

Martyn1981

Grumpy_chap said:

Surely the TM3, or any EV, only achieves the silly fast acceleration at the expense of rapidly reducing range.  The same laws of physics apply as for an ICE.  Impact of reducing range on an EV is more significant than an ICE.

Most buyers of cars are not ever going to drive at peak acceleration or peak speed - those that wish to won't buy the TM3SR or the Lexus but the TM3Performance or the BMW M5.

The logical "converter" to EV seems to me to be someone that was previously tending towards the "hypermiler" club in the first place.

You are continuing to avoid where the initial extra outlay in capital price (or monthly PCP >£100 more) finally ends up - someone has to carry that depreciation.  

Yes, of course a performance vehicle when driven hard has higher energy consumption and lower efficiency, I don't understand your point. I was simply pointing out the TM3 is a more performance vehicle than the Lexus you picked. Might be wrong, but I'd have thought, well guessed, that the impact on the BEV would be less, not more, since the ICEV needs to be driven in lower gears, and therefore more rpms and fuel consumption - be interesting to know though.

Isn't the M5 more expensive than a TM3 LR, or performance?

Yep, and there are a lot of cheaper BEV's with ever rising ranges.

Doesn't depreciation come under running costs, and BEV's (not all I admit) seem to be doing well.

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

The logical "converter" to EV seems to me to be someone that was previously tending towards the "hypermiler" club in the first place.  

That certainly applies in my case. I used to get 75mpg at times and average 60mpg in my Golf. That perhaps is why we see such good mpkWh figures reported. Once the boy racers get their hands on them the economy will take a nose dive.