Meanwhile in Germany: Let's stick to combustion engines for at least 10 more years with 500km range and a multiple of energy and maintenance costs...
BMW is heavily invested in Neue Klasse[1], the iX3 has a long waiting list and a 800KM range.
But who am I kidding? I’m not their target audience.
As noted in the article:
> "The Seal 08’s claimed 1,000+ km CLTC range translates to roughly 620+ miles — though real-world figures under EPA or WLTP testing would be lower. For reference, the recently updated Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+ claims 926 km under WLTP (575 miles) with its new 800V architecture and 118 kWh battery."
To compare the range properly you need to do a real world test of the vehicles on the same circuit in the same conditions.
It's basic game theory, you all commit to ramping up delivery of EVs at the same time because one of you could benefit in the short term if you defect, so without the law everyone does so and everyone loses.
Yes they will be, some time around now or the recent past, depending on country.
Source:
https://dmnews.co.uk/electric-cars-are-now-officially-cheape...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/17/new-uk-e...
I'm an example of someone who doesn't fit the obvious ban combustion engine model. I own a German combustion engine car but don't use it much as I mostly get around by ebike + train.
Tax carbon rather than dictating which technology! My biggest emissions are probably gas heating and flights both of which have approx 0% tax so forcing me to get an electric car isn't really going to fix that. I'm not really a climate doomer but if you are, current policies are a good way to get doom.
And that EU scheme already covers aviation, though it's phased in with exemptions etc. so doesn't cover everything.
*Technically an emission trading scheme but these are basically equivalent to carbon taxes in effect.
Bring in fast chargers or a lot of the commercial offerings into the mix and you're looking at .6 per kWh. Never mind the subscription/account bullshit a lot of companies are doing.
Regardless of that, I would still only ever buy an EV when I get a new car.
Which means that ICE Vehicle energy and maintenance costs are a multiple of (i.e. several times that of) EV energy and maintenance costs.
And so EV energy and maintenance costs are a fraction of the ICE energy and maintenance costs.
You can debate this assertion if you like, but first you have to read it successfully.
If your argument is about the actual running costs of EVS and ICE Vehicles: also no.
I have no argument, just an observation that for six decades I've always taken multiplier to possibly mean any positive, negative, or zero value, rational or irrational, etc.
No, and that's the point of using a different word "submultiple".
> I've always taken multiplier
"a multiple of" is not the same thing as "multiplier". Or "submultiple" either. Different words have different meanings. So not relevant.
> to possibly mean any positive, negative, or zero value, rational or irrational,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple
multiple, noun: the product of a quantity by an integer. So no.
1/2 * x
What do you think 1/2 here is? Stick to doom.
I think it's a ratio between two integers. If you have a point to make here, you also first have to write it successfully.
What other maintenance costs can you think of?
And how much does it cost to drive 500 miles in the electric car charged at £0.08/kWh vs diesel at 50 mpg (£1.91/L) or petrol car at 35 mpg (£1.58/L)?
Plus, you have to service the steering column, wheels, bearings, etc. Not saying these are equal to ICE costs - definitely not. I just thought even EVs had to get regular maintenance as they are fundamentally the same apart from the drivetrain itself.