Volkswagen ID Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered User
Joined
·
38 Posts
At this time Toyota is making millions of regular hybrids and switching their entire production (about 10 million cars a year) to hybrids. They don't have battery or production capacity to make 10 million BEVs. So they use it for hybrids. It makes sense from an environmental perspective (e.g. 40 hybrids make a much larger environmental benefit than a single BEV that you can make with the same amount of batteries.) They have just two plug ins hybrids (Prius prime and RAV 4 Prime), a new BEV (Lexus UX which has an air cooled battery) and maybe a couple of BEVs for Chinese market. A car like RAV4 Prime shows that they are capable of building awesome EVs if they want to. It looks like they don't want to make BEVs unless they are forced by regulation.

I think they want to skip this generation of Li-ion batteries and make the big shift when solid state batteries become a reality.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
157 Posts
For some reason, the Japanese makers spent a lot of time on Fuel Cells. Except for Nissan ,they are playing catch up now. On the other hand, the Korean mfg's leapt on EV's, but not before Nissan.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
38 Posts
There’s a discussion about Toyota on this YouTube video:

Based on my personal experience an electric car is significantly better than an ICE car for 361 days of the year. For the other 4 days (assuming 2 long distance >400 mile road trips) an ICE car is more convenient. My take is that for a 2 car family with kids a BEV and a larger PHEV (like Clarity, Pacifica or RAV4) makes perfect sense as long as you can charge overnight. For a one car person either BEV or PHEV (if you have overnight or workplace charging) still makes more sense than an ICE car.

One thing that is not clear yet is how long current BEVs will last. I understand some people have driven 200k miles on a battery pack, but there is a difference between 200k in 5 years vs. 20 years. Most Toyota cars last 20-25 years and go 200k miles. There is no track record for BEVs yet to prove they are capable of similar life cycles.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
157 Posts
Exactly. I have two PHEV's, now; having traded my EV BMW i3 for one of them. One of the PHEV's will be traded for the ID.4. After 6 years of mixed EV/PHEV/ICE experience, I have concluded that the "current" ideal mix is one 200+ mile EV and a PHEV. I'm more concerned with obsolescence than with projected lifetime. Any 250 mile range EV will be obsolete in 3 years, despite it having many more years of life available. Likewise, I wonder whether any ICE-based vehicle will still be usable 20 years from now, even if it's still running. Banned from city centers like places in Europe, now? Socially unacceptable in polite company like cigarette smoking, now? Parts availability? Availability of the diagnostic computer systems dealership's need to service modern ICE vehicles? Service tech competence for ICE vehicles? The day is coming and I'm thinking about when the right time is to trade my last PHEV. I'm thinking when the median range for an EV is 500 miles, in about 3 years.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Based on my personal experience an electric car is significantly better than an ICE car for 361 days of the year. For the other 4 days (assuming 2 long distance >400 mile road trips) an ICE car is more convenient. My take is that for a 2 car family with kids a BEV and a larger PHEV (like Clarity, Pacifica or RAV4) makes perfect sense as long as you can charge overnight. For a one car person either BEV or PHEV (if you have overnight or workplace charging) still makes more sense than an ICE car.

One thing that is not clear yet is how long current BEVs will last. I understand some people have driven 200k miles on a battery pack, but there is a difference between 200k in 5 years vs. 20 years. Most Toyota cars last 20-25 years and go 200k miles. There is no track record for BEVs yet to prove they are capable of similar life cycles.
Seems like EV longevity should be measured in hours instead of miles. In any event the motors should last a long time if they are well maintained. How about the batteries?
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Exactly. I have two PHEV's, now; having traded my EV BMW i3 for one of them. One of the PHEV's will be traded for the ID.4. After 6 years of mixed EV/PHEV/ICE experience, I have concluded that the "current" ideal mix is one 200+ mile EV and a PHEV. I'm more concerned with obsolescence than with projected lifetime. Any 250 mile range EV will be obsolete in 3 years, despite it having many more years of life available. Likewise, I wonder whether any ICE-based vehicle will still be usable 20 years from now, even if it's still running. Banned from city centers like places in Europe, now? Socially unacceptable in polite company like cigarette smoking, now? Parts availability? Availability of the diagnostic computer systems dealership's need to service modern ICE vehicles? Service tech competence for ICE vehicles? The day is coming and I'm thinking about when the right time is to trade my last PHEV. I'm thinking when the median range for an EV is 500 miles, in about 3 years.
There will likely be a market for "old" EV's with inferior batteries but it will be a lot less than the cost when new. If the future is cheaper batteries and longer range and less weight making the entire vehicle less expensive and IF it happens in three years the current crop of EV's will take a huge hit. They will still be functional just not worth very much.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
30 Posts
Different strokes for different folks...personally I think its crazy to try and drive while looking at and scrolling on an iPad styled screen mounted to the right of the steering wheel or streaming an iPhone program w/bluetooth. Its nuts. And being at the mercy of all of that technology which can shut down at any time and does, from time to time leaving you stranded. Worrying about how you are going to find your next charging location. Plus you overpay a whole bunch of dollars to enjoy all of that fun.
I spent some time with Tesla recently and looked at leasing one of their vehicles. Absolutely the worst attempted car acquiring experience of my life. They quoted me one $ figure to lease when I first talked to them, and days later that $ figure was 3 times higher...same car same equipment. Confusing paper work, double talk upon double talk. Fed up, I canceled my order, lost my $100 deposit, but thank God I canceled. Tesla is for the birds, just like their leader Elon. Tesla gets a lot of good press, but its all hype and lots of BS.
The current EV situation will have to improve an awful lot before they ever get my business, and not likely ever with Tesla. I can't blame Apple for not buying them.
 

·
Registered User
ID.4 1st Dusk Blue
Joined
·
148 Posts
Any 250 mile range EV will be obsolete in 3 years, despite it having many more years of life available.
I am not sure I agree here. If the vehicle works well for you, then any obsolescence based on a purely technological viewpoint is sort of moot, isn't it?

There will likely be a market for "old" EV's with inferior batteries but it will be a lot less than the cost when new. If the future is cheaper batteries and longer range and less weight making the entire vehicle less expensive and IF it happens in three years the current crop of EV's will take a huge hit. They will still be functional just not worth very much.
If you think this one through to the end with cheaper, better batteries dominating the market, it is not too far fetched to expect that battery upgrades might be a thing. The packs are modular after all, so swapping in newer, better modules ought to be possible. We are long past the weirdly shaped Nissan Leaf and eGolf packs.

My thinking is: There's a lot of technological innovation and ecosystem evolution ahead of us, and given that EVs will dominate the market, demand will drive that process to the benefit of us EV owners. Think independent service centers that can go deep and repair cheaper (there's already a guy in Vista, half an hour north of me, doing this with Teslas), third party replacement parts, more charging stations and options, significant software upgrades (incl. third party "hacks"), and we have only scratched the surface here.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
258 Posts
significant software upgrades (incl. third party "hacks"), and we have only scratched the surface here.
VW has been looking for software 'upgrades' for years. Almost every time you go to a VW dealer the car is hooked to the VW network and scanned. If something non VW shows up, the car is flagged and any warranty work is denied.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
173 Posts
I'm thinking when the median range for an EV is 500 miles, in about 3 years.
So, why is 500 miles the magical number for you? Do you often do 500 miles non-stop stints? I really prefer to fly any trip longer than 300 miles and wouldn't want to do any trip longer than 200 miles without some break in the middle.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I am not sure I agree here. If the vehicle works well for you, then any obsolescence based on a purely technological viewpoint is sort of moot, isn't it?


If you think this one through to the end with cheaper, better batteries dominating the market, it is not too far fetched to expect that battery upgrades might be a thing. The packs are modular after all, so swapping in newer, better modules ought to be possible. We are long past the weirdly shaped Nissan Leaf and eGolf packs.

My thinking is: There's a lot of technological innovation and ecosystem evolution ahead of us, and given that EVs will dominate the market, demand will drive that process to the benefit of us EV owners. Think independent service centers that can go deep and repair cheaper (there's already a guy in Vista, half an hour north of me, doing this with Teslas), third party replacement parts, more charging stations and options, significant software upgrades (incl. third party "hacks"), and we have only scratched the surface here.
I don't doubt that retro fitting an existing car with newer batteries might be possible, but at what cost? They may be cheaper but still cost thousand of dollars and you still have some other older tech to deal with. I think old EV's will be just that and be priced accordingly.

I agree that a functioning vehicle that serves the intended purpose still has value to the owner. I have an 8 year old CX5 with only 24000 miles. It had all of the bell and whistles when new and still looks new but it is worth less than 50% of what I paid for it. That is why I am probably going to wait a couple of years before I jump on the EV bandwagon. I really wouldn't be gaining anything except limiting my range and spending $$. If someone is going to be an early adopter of EV with the limited range and in some case limited charging stations they have already concluded it isn't critical to their needs so tech obsolescence and the associated loss of value is going to make a lot of difference. Something else is driving their decision. Very few of us purchase the most practical car available.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
38 Posts
I believe EVs will get better but not cheaper in a few years. Any price reduction in batteries will be offset by reduction in incentives. A 82 kWh battery pack costs about $10k for manufacturers now. So unless its cost is negative it is not possible to get a iD4 for lower price than what you can get right now (incentives included). Make no mistake once EV range go over 400 miles and market penetration over 10-15% subsidies will be phased out. Once subsidies are out used EV prices will also stabilize. I think right now we are in a phase were driving an EV provides the lowest overall cost of ownership in many parts of the world.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I believe EVs will get better but not cheaper in a few years. Any price reduction in batteries will be offset by reduction in incentives. A 82 kWh battery pack costs about $10k for manufacturers now. So unless its cost is negative it is not possible to get a iD4 for lower price than what you can get right now (incentives included). Make no mistake once EV range go over 400 miles and market penetration over 10-15% subsidies will be phased out. Once subsidies are out used EV prices will also stabilize. I think right now we are in a phase were driving an EV provides the lowest overall cost of ownership in many parts of the world.

EV's will have to get cheaper AND better or they will never go mainstream. They are not affordable for most people even with the tax credits, many people do not pay enough in income taxes to get the maximum credit. I agree the subsidies will go away and when they do manufacturers will need to step up there game to produce cars that can compete with a similar model ICE vehicle. What surprises me is that Tesla, the pioneer of EV's is still not able to turn a profit selling very expensive cars without the sale of regulatory tax credits. In Q2 2020 Tesla had net income of $104 million but ONLY after selling $428 million in tax credits. As more manufacturers meet their emissions quotas the need to purchase tax credits from Tesla will diminish and that will be at the same time that competition is coming on strong.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
157 Posts
I am not sure I agree here. If the vehicle works well for you, then any obsolescence based on a purely technological viewpoint is sort of moot, isn't it?


UOTE]
So, why is 500 miles the magical number for you? Do you often do 500 miles non-stop stints? I really prefer to fly any trip longer than 300 miles and wouldn't want to do any trip longer than 200 miles without some break in the middle.
I agree. If the vehicle meets your needs and you are willing to keep it there is no reason to dispose of it and it's resale is moot. But, I would not want to still be driving my 1994 BMW 540i compared to my 2020 BMW 530e. YMMV.

An example of accelerated depreciation is my 2014 BMW i3. It's MSRP was $55K, less $7500K tax credit. Between when I bought it (wish I'd leased it) and 3 years later, new-model range was double that of my car and trade-in was $15K.

I set 500 miles as the benchmark because it is the range that will allow one mid-day lunchtime charging session while on the road on a long trip. The mid-day charging will only be to 80% for greatest time efficiency, so 400 miles. Most will leave a cushion in range in case a charger station is inoperable and for cold weather or head winds, so say 350 miles. In my travels, I've frequently done 700 mile days on interstates. A 500 mile theoretical range does not mean people will drive 500 miles between charges. Today, a 250 mile range means 3 to 4 stops for charging in a 700 mile day. Yes, even on 700 mile days I stop 3 to 4 times for 10 min, or so; except for lunch. But those stops are more convenient than some random Wal-Mart's EA charging station. The frequency of stops will be a deterrent to widespread adoption. I believe that once range reaches 500 miles, manufacturer efforts will be directed to weight reduction over range.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
173 Posts

EV's will have to get cheaper AND better or they will never go mainstream. They are not affordable for most people even with the tax credits, many people do not pay enough in income taxes to get the maximum credit. I agree the subsidies will go away and when they do manufacturers will need to step up there game to produce cars that can compete with a similar model ICE vehicle. What surprises me is that Tesla, the pioneer of EV's is still not able to turn a profit selling very expensive cars without the sale of regulatory tax credits. In Q2 2020 Tesla had net income of $104 million but ONLY after selling $428 million in tax credits. As more manufacturers meet their emissions quotas the need to purchase tax credits from Tesla will diminish and that will be at the same time that competition is coming on strong.
Any new car is not affordable to most people, It is not just EVs.

Why did you not use Tesla's most recent financials instead of the quarter where they had shut down manufacturing due to the pandemic? In Q3, Tesla had $555m net income before taxes (after paying stock based compensations of $338m in the quarter) with income of regulatory credits of $397m. If you go back to 2019, both Q3 & Q4 had net income greater than regulatory credits.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Any new car is not affordable to most people, It is not just EVs.

Why did you not use Tesla's most recent financials instead of the quarter where they had shut down manufacturing due to the pandemic? In Q3, Tesla had $555m net income before taxes (after paying stock based compensations of $338m in the quarter) with income of regulatory credits of $397m. If you go back to 2019, both Q3 & Q4 had net income greater than regulatory credits.
Tesla generated $8.771 billion in revenue, buoyed by $579 million in energy storage sales and $581 million in services revenue. Tesla once again wasn’t purely profitable based on its sales, though. It also sold $397 million worth of regulatory credits in the quarter, a decrease from the record $428 million in credits it sold during Q2 of this year.
  • Earnings per share (adjusted): 76 cents vs 57 cents, per Refinitiv
  • Revenue: $8.77 billion vs $8.36 billion, per Refinitiv
  • Net income (GAAP): $331 million vs $394 million, per Refinitiv
Tesla posted a $386 million profit in the final three months of 2019 using the operating basis followed by most analysts and investors. That left it with a narrow $35.8 million profit for the year.

BS. Plenty of people can afford a new car that is sub $20,000 and financed for 7 years. That is a far cry from one that cost $40K.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
173 Posts
Tesla generated $8.771 billion in revenue, buoyed by $579 million in energy storage sales and $581 million in services revenue. Tesla once again wasn’t purely profitable based on its sales, though. It also sold $397 million worth of regulatory credits in the quarter, a decrease from the record $428 million in credits it sold during Q2 of this year.
  • Earnings per share (adjusted): 76 cents vs 57 cents, per Refinitiv
  • Revenue: $8.77 billion vs $8.36 billion, per Refinitiv
  • Net income (GAAP): $331 million vs $394 million, per Refinitiv
Tesla posted a $386 million profit in the final three months of 2019 using the operating basis followed by most analysts and investors. That left it with a narrow $35.8 million profit for the year.

BS. Plenty of people can afford a new car that is sub $20,000 and financed for 7 years. That is a far cry from one that cost $40K.
So, you can't count the income from energy storage and service revenue but the expense side is ok to keep in your figures? The $579m in revenue for energy storage came at a cost of revenue of $558m so $21m net of costs. The $581m in service revenue came at a cost of revenue of $644m so Tesla lost money on services. Tesla's automotive gross margin for Q3 was 28% and 26% year-to-date which is on the upper end for automotive companies.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
So, you can't count the income from energy storage and service revenue but the expense side is ok to keep in your figures? The $579m in revenue for energy storage came at a cost of revenue of $558m so $21m net of costs. The $581m in service revenue came at a cost of revenue of $644m so Tesla lost money on services. Tesla's automotive gross margin for Q3 was 28% and 26% year-to-date which is on the upper end for automotive companies.
I have no interest in arguing with you which is apparently something you want to do. The fact is that Tesla needs the energy credits to make money. You are the one trying to slice and dice the figures. I don't own Tesla, nor will I so I really don't care. This is supposed to be a forum about VW.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top