Why EV?
- Thread starter peralex1
- Start date
tom
***
That's an important point GadgetGav just made, for example in California our lease must be 30 months to qualify for the $2500 state rebate.GadgetGav said:
If your state will give you $3,000 for a two year lease then that's a ridiculous low price you are getting at zero down $299 per month.
$299 x 24 - $3000 w/ zero down = $4,176. That's only $174 per month (4176/24). Every ICE car owner should take this deal because the gas money you save will be more than enough to pay for the lease.
Don't know what your electricity cost is, but in northern California I pay about $120 per month to charge my LEAF (we do about 15,000 miles per year)
I think I was not clear - $299 a month with $0 down after $3000 rebate - so it is $299 not $174. $120 for 1,250 miles sounds very high. Do you mean your entire electrical bill is $120? I currently pay about $0.12 per kwh (just signed up for alternative supplier for $0.0759 guaranteed for 6 month) . Even if you make 3 miles per kwh (i think it should be more like 4 miles) - you should be paying like $50 plus service charge. Unless in CA your energy price is double what we pay in Northeast.
No, I didn't freeze. I used the heater as needed and the heated seat. Although the heat in ICE is a free byproduct, the electric heat in the e-Golf is instant which is nice on a short commute. In the 10 min it takes me to get to work, my ICE would have just about warmed up :roll:peralex1 said:
Where are you in the Northeast? $0.0759 is a great rate..! Our NStar rate was going to go up from $0.093 to $0.149 (a 60% rise in my eyes, not the 29% they claimed in the press) so we switched to a green supplier at $0.114. Still quite an increase from last year though.
Solar is my next project...Sorry, I don't mean to derail this thread, but I don't see an easy way to split it into a new one...
I'll take the bet that the US economy won't experience hyperinflation within 5 years.
The money that's been created through the various quantitive easing schemes has largely gone into bank reserves, not into the general economy. This was intentional to stop more banks failing. In a bank vault, it doesn't cause inflationary pressure and the Fed has a lot of options to stop it causing inflation; raise the reserve requirements, sell bonds, etc. Just because Marc Farber and UBS are saying it's a risk, doesn't make it true... The US economy is very different to places that have experienced hyperinflation. Inflation in the art and mansion markets do not cause hyperinflation in the general economy.cove3 said:
I'll take the bet that the US economy won't experience hyperinflation within 5 years.
tom
***
I have to look into what I am paying for electricity.peralex1 said:
Getting back to the lease vs. buy-used discussion above.
So, given your numbers, we are looking at leasing $300/mo x 24 months = $7,200 vs. buy-used $13,000
If you leased, at the end of two years you don' have a car. If you buy-used, at the end of two years you still have a car that's probably worth $8,000
Also, my guess is I will be able to replace the battery several years down the road for around $4,000. Realistically I am not going to do that because I will most likely change cars by then, but that's an option if one really wants to save money (e.g. give the used EV to your college kid)
Down the road there might be a vibrant market for after-market batteries, then in theory one could operate an EV very cheaply for a very long time. (keep in mind batteries will get better and better)
It's like the iPhone 5s with its very solid physical design and construcion, in theory I could save money and use that thing for 10+ years by changing its battery every 4 years. In theory one could do that with these EVs.
EVs are very different than ICE cars because they simply don't break down (e.g. the two LEAFs I have are 100% trouble free and sometimes I am a very aggressive driver). When replacement batteries are available, people will be able to make their EVs last a very long time if they wanted to. The nature of the auto industry is going to change when that day comes.
miimura
***
The auto industry is not prepared for this change. Therefore, I expect that the car companies, even Nissan, will obstruct and cause as much uncertainty about third party batteries as they can within the law. They simply want to sell new cars.tom said:
tom
***
No doubt the legacy auto industry is going to have a hard time adjusting during this long transition period. The state of the EV industry today somewhat reminds me of the Internet back in 1990-92, by 1993-94 most can see it's going to take off big time (when Mosaic first came out). That day is almost here with electric cars. As soon as people can lease 150-mile-range EVs for $300 per month (w/ $3000 down) the volume will take off big time.miimura said:
I was just day dreaming perhaps Tesla should skip the Model X and hurry up bring out the Model 3. Maybe the company needs to do the Model X for financial reasons but my gut tells me batteries are cheap enough for them to bring out the Model 3 today. Ok, maybe not 250-mile range for $40,000, but lets introduce them at 175-mile range at the end of this year, instead of waiting another two years for the 225-mile model. Elon Musk's goal is to save the planet and the Model X seems a waste of time and effort to me. But Musk is probably the smartest guy on the planet on this subject so I trust he knows what he is doing.
What's going to help to save the planet is more cars like the LEAF and the e-Golf with 150+ mile range. E-Golf owners are already getting 100 mile range under the right conditions. I wish the scientists and engineers would hurry up! We spent $1 trillion dollars in Iraq to create a playground for ISIS, surely we can divert a few billion dollars to battery scientists and engineers.
Let's assume it costs VW $25,000 to make each e-Golf SEL. $1 trillion / $25,000 = 40 million e-Golfs
We could have 40 million e-Golfs on the road today w/ no ISIS in Iraq
Did you guys see Bush W on TV yesterday? In a commencement speech he was bragging even "C" students can become Presidents. Doesn't he understand if Saddam Hussein was still in power there would be no ISIS in Iraq today. Doesn't he understand that when Saddam Hussein was in charge, Iraq and Iran hated each other and that was a nice balance from our prospective? I guess W being a "C" student didn't do his homework when he took our country to war with Iraq. Hussein never attacked us. In fact we where aiding Iraq when Hussein had his war with Iran in the 1980s.
$1 trillion can buy a lot of batteries. Worse, the Gigafactory Musk is building will cost around $5 billion. $1 trillion can create 200 Gigafactories. Imagine what that can do to battery prices and the electric car industry.
Sorry I digressed.
Here is W at SMU last week bragging about how he was a "C" students:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTtHgTFgcFA
cove3
***
We have been spending billions on battery technology. So far it's been a small number of incremental improvements to not only the battery, but also drive train, car weight, software etc that's got us to 100 miles. The breakthrough battery density so far, though, has been a sinkhole and not for lack of funding.
The battery breakthrough graveyard is full. a123, eestor, envia, better place etc all bankrupt. Musk for one says there's no breakthrough coming and he's using the S battery for the Model 3....basically a ton of batteries approach. These two links make an interesting read
http://qz.com/158373/envia-the-mysterious-story-of-the-battery-startup-that-promised-gm-a-200-mile-electric-car/
http://insideevs.com/eestor-hits-snag-as-independent-ultracapacitor-tests-dont-go-well/
The current cliff hanger is Quantum Scape, a solid state battery company which VW has a 5% interest in with an option to buy more. VW will make a go/no go decision in July
http://insideevs.com/july-volkswagen-will-know-breakthrough-battery-tech-quantumscape-ready-primetime/
Ron
The battery breakthrough graveyard is full. a123, eestor, envia, better place etc all bankrupt. Musk for one says there's no breakthrough coming and he's using the S battery for the Model 3....basically a ton of batteries approach. These two links make an interesting read
http://qz.com/158373/envia-the-mysterious-story-of-the-battery-startup-that-promised-gm-a-200-mile-electric-car/
http://insideevs.com/eestor-hits-snag-as-independent-ultracapacitor-tests-dont-go-well/
The current cliff hanger is Quantum Scape, a solid state battery company which VW has a 5% interest in with an option to buy more. VW will make a go/no go decision in July
http://insideevs.com/july-volkswagen-will-know-breakthrough-battery-tech-quantumscape-ready-primetime/
Ron
tom
***
Battery has been improving at the rate of 7% per year and will likely continue to do so in the next ten years.
Given that we are already at 100-mile range today, +7% per year is not too bad at all going forward.
In five years: 100 x 1.07**5 = 140 miles
In ten years: 200 miles.
The next version of LEAF (2H:2016) and e-Golf will be 125+ miles and a lot of people will be open to leasing them.
I don't understand why Nissan never offered a 30 kWh battery option (current one is 24 kWh). I am sure many people would have leased the 30 kWh version for a bit more money. The e-Golf can get to 120 miles range today with a 30 kWh battery, there is plenty of trunk space.
I recall at first Tesla gave customers choice of 40/60/85 kWh and most bought the 85 kWh. They discontinued the 40 shortly after. Today they only offer 70 or 85 kWh. I would definitely pay a bit more for the 30 kWh LEAF or e-Golf.
Given that we are already at 100-mile range today, +7% per year is not too bad at all going forward.
In five years: 100 x 1.07**5 = 140 miles
In ten years: 200 miles.
The next version of LEAF (2H:2016) and e-Golf will be 125+ miles and a lot of people will be open to leasing them.
I don't understand why Nissan never offered a 30 kWh battery option (current one is 24 kWh). I am sure many people would have leased the 30 kWh version for a bit more money. The e-Golf can get to 120 miles range today with a 30 kWh battery, there is plenty of trunk space.
I recall at first Tesla gave customers choice of 40/60/85 kWh and most bought the 85 kWh. They discontinued the 40 shortly after. Today they only offer 70 or 85 kWh. I would definitely pay a bit more for the 30 kWh LEAF or e-Golf.
miimura
***
A 30kWh Leaf is reportedly coming very soon.tom said:
http://insideevs.com/2016-nissan-leaf-get-25-larger-battery/
I still don't want a Leaf. Model 3 should be available by the time our e-Golf lease is up.
BTW, Model X was a hedge against weak Model S demand. Since S demand has been high, especially after the release of the "D", there was no need to rush it to market, so they have pushed out the release and taken their time with it. The Model 3 will NOT use Model S batteries. Obviously, the strategy will be the same (use lots of small cells), but the cells will be slightly larger physically and have a notably larger capacity per cell. Gigafactory battery production will be the only way to meet Model 3 price targets.
That lease vs buy decision is lease a new e-Golf vs buy a used Leaf though... they're not the same car. Personally, I had signed up for the Leaf before it was launched but passed when it was actually shown. The e-Golf was the first mid-market electric car I actually liked so until there are used e-Golfs as well, there will be other factors entering the decision (or the buy price will be much higher).tom said:
Of course, I did get an email from Tesla the other day saying their 'previously owned' Model S cars are now available... Hmmm....
They still start at $55,000 though, so there's a way to go before even used Teslas are affordable.
On the buy v lease discussion, most people seem to say you shouldn't buy because the cars will have more range in 3-4 years and your resale will be terrible. But, what if you don't plan on getting a new car in 3 years? What if you've always kept your cars for 10+ years before getting a new one? I've always assumed that leasing would be more expensive if you decide to keep the car at the end of the lease than if you buy the car outright from the beginning. Is that not right? I guess my questions is, if one is a buy-and-hold car buyer and the current e-Golf meets their needs, shouldn't they just buy rather than lease?
For me, the e-Golf in its current iteration meets my needs perfectly well. I drive 20 miles or less most days with up to 40-50 on the occasional weekend. Other than long-distance out of town trips, for which I use my 12 year old ICE, I've driven more than 60 miles in a day exactly 3 times in the over six months since I got my e-Golf. Once, I did the trip without having to charge. Once, I used a fast-charger, and once i took my ICE. Even if the e-Golf ends up at 70% battery capacity 8 years from now, it will still meet all but my occasional driving needs (since I live in SF Bay Area, there's no significant winter range hit that I've seen). Because of that, it seemed to me that leasing now, then buying a longer range ev in 3 years when the lease was up would have just result in me spending a net total of more money for additional range I don't necessarily need.
For me, the e-Golf in its current iteration meets my needs perfectly well. I drive 20 miles or less most days with up to 40-50 on the occasional weekend. Other than long-distance out of town trips, for which I use my 12 year old ICE, I've driven more than 60 miles in a day exactly 3 times in the over six months since I got my e-Golf. Once, I did the trip without having to charge. Once, I used a fast-charger, and once i took my ICE. Even if the e-Golf ends up at 70% battery capacity 8 years from now, it will still meet all but my occasional driving needs (since I live in SF Bay Area, there's no significant winter range hit that I've seen). Because of that, it seemed to me that leasing now, then buying a longer range ev in 3 years when the lease was up would have just result in me spending a net total of more money for additional range I don't necessarily need.
On the buy v lease discussion, most people seem to say you shouldn't buy because the cars will have more range in 3-4 years and your resale will be terrible. But, what if you don't plan on getting a new car in 3 years? What if you've always kept your cars for 10+ years before getting a new one? I've always assumed that leasing would be more expensive if you decide to keep the car at the end of the lease than if you buy the car outright from the beginning. Is that not right? I guess my questions is, if one is a buy-and-hold car buyer and the current e-Golf meets their needs, shouldn't they just buy rather than lease?
For me, the e-Golf in its current iteration meets my needs perfectly well. I drive 20 miles or less most days with up to 40-50 on the occasional weekend. Other than long-distance out of town trips, for which I use my 12 year old ICE, I've driven more than 60 miles in a day exactly 3 times in the over six months since I got my e-Golf. Once, I did the trip without having to charge. Once, I used a fast-charger, and once i took my ICE. Even if the e-Golf ends up at 70% battery capacity 8 years from now, it will still meet all but my occasional driving needs (since I live in SF Bay Area, there's no significant winter range hit that I've seen). Because of that, it seemed to me that leasing now, then buying a longer range ev in 3 years when the lease was up would have just result in me spending a net total of more money for additional range I don't necessarily need.
For me, the e-Golf in its current iteration meets my needs perfectly well. I drive 20 miles or less most days with up to 40-50 on the occasional weekend. Other than long-distance out of town trips, for which I use my 12 year old ICE, I've driven more than 60 miles in a day exactly 3 times in the over six months since I got my e-Golf. Once, I did the trip without having to charge. Once, I used a fast-charger, and once i took my ICE. Even if the e-Golf ends up at 70% battery capacity 8 years from now, it will still meet all but my occasional driving needs (since I live in SF Bay Area, there's no significant winter range hit that I've seen). Because of that, it seemed to me that leasing now, then buying a longer range ev in 3 years when the lease was up would have just result in me spending a net total of more money for additional range I don't necessarily need.
SfEvR said:
I would say not necessarily. I usually negotiate the purchase price first, then during finance negotiation I choose lease vs. buy. Even when I plan to purchase a vehicle I usually end up leasing first because the effective interest rate is usually near 0 (0.4% for my e-Golf). The added benefit is that you have a couple more options at the end of the lease. Of course you can purchase or buy, but often you will have equity in the vehicle, so if you want to turn it in you can get cash back or $ toward another vehicle. You can get a quote from CarMax and compare that to your residual to see if you have equity. I find I have a lot more options when I lease first.
snAKes said:
Interesting. Thanks for the response. 0.4% interest is really low. So, it sounds like sometimes can cost an insignificant amount more than purchasing (and arguably less if you consider the time value of the money spent on an outright purchase). It also gives more flexibility to turn it in and get something new when the lease is up. For me, no chance I'll car shop again in 3 years, but thanks for the explanation.