Common sense. EVs are amazing but they are not where close to being practical replacement for ICE engines. Governments should stop subdizing rich people's EVs and insteead help make more efficient and cheaper ICE engines.
In the US the government has been helping (by a definition of "helping" that means "forcing the development of by tightening emissions and efficiency requirements") that development of more-efficient for decades.
It's not an either-or for that vs EVs. And it's also not exactly popular either; not hard to find people bemoaning the loss of naturally-aspirated engines and higher displacement. The market has repeatedly also chosen "more powerful" over "cheaper" for decades now.
Possibly some targeting of hybrid subsidies as well would help, but it seems like a lot of hybrids are already doing quite well in the market (e.g. Ford Maverick), so I'm not entirely sure why manufacturers aren't already moving in that direction more after being initially surprised by the demand.
But I'm also very unconvinced that cheaper ICE engines or more hybrids are what Buick dealers want.
The fuel savings alone are around £1,200/year for me on 10k miles per year. Once the price of the cars come down this will be a big saving for a lot of people.
I'm surprised by the "more spacious" comment, however. In the same size class, EVs tend to be more cramped because of how much space is needed for batteries. Even for large cars, like the Cybertruck, the trade-offs are fairly evident. No spare tire, for example.
It will certainly go away, and with it one of the major non-environmental reasons to own an EV: fuel costs.
31 states already have an extra annual/registration fee for EVs to make up for the lost gas tax revenue. Often the annual fee on EVs is higher than the average amount of state gas tax paid by the average driver, but this still comes out to just $100-300 per year. This is like 25-50% of typical fuel savings of EV vs ICE vehicles even at today's very low gas prices.
Ah, but the EPA did the math for me, and you're pretty much correct, even considering efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
This is such a nonsensical argument. I own two cars, and have a bit of a commute. I gas up once a week, it takes 10 minutes. What are you "waiting" for? There's a gas station on the corner in every town across North America.
Meanwhile, the same EV crowd talk about stopping for 30 minutes at a time on road trip to charge and go to the washroom.
EV > ICE for commuters and local driving.
ICE >>> EV for long distances the commonality of which seems to be grossly downplayed for most of the US.
The estimated range for a 2023 Chevy Bolt is 259 miles where hitting 250 miles is a short drive for a weekend trip in the midwest. For a friend's bachelorette party which was a 4 day weekend we drove 600 miles one way nonstop. If you're a 2+ car family an EV is a no brainer for the second car.
On the last long journey I did the car was charged before I’d finished eating, so no waiting there either.
Until EVs have matured more and become less expensive than ICEVs, PHEVs are the best option and HEVs are the second best option.
Also, the term, "ICE engines", is redundant.
- Average cost of a new vehicle: $48,000
- Fastest selling vehicle ever made: Tesla Model Y.
Just some data points to consider.
Avg miles drive per day:5 (1.5mile commute each way + some extra generous miles)
Avg cost of a new vehicle: idk I've never bought a new vehicle. My last vehicle was a used repo and purchased in 2009. Still going strong.
Fastest selling vehicle ever made: without some data point this seems like complete bs. Toyota, Ford, Honda, insert every major car company, makes more vehicles per year than Tesla could dream about.
Fastest selling car, most units sold in a day/week/quarter/year… I don’t know how else to say it. My point was about EV popularity not trying to boost Tesla.