What Customers Really Want

[Rangers09]

12 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

If your hung up using MPGs as a measurement, it doesn't really matter after you hit 20-30 MPG

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html
 

 

Yes, as cars are more fuel efficient, small increases have less noticeable results, but regardless they are still positive.

 

In the 1990's I drove a base model Festiva, which got 70 mpg on the Motorway and since I worked shifts, rarely drove in traffic. For the 10,000 miles in the study you quoted, at 30 mpg it requires 333 gals and at the 70 mpg I attained, it required 143 gals. So attaining 70 mpg, I used less than 1/2 the fuel or a vehicle only getting 30 mpg, which I'll suggest is a saving that does matter.

 

Since I drove about 30,000 miles a year to/from work, the annual savings for my Festiva over a 30 mpg car was 570 gallons. That certainly mattered.

 

[Rangers09]

23 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And the only thing holding back EVs is pricing and charging, which both should get better as time goes on.

 

 

 

In addition to those issues you also have limited range, which is further reduced by using the cabin heater or AC. I have no doubt technology will improve over time and prices may become affordable, but those issues are significant impediments to a BEV meeting the needs of many prospective purchasers. Charging is also 2 separate issues, time to charge and limited availability of charging stations that work.

 

While they try to resolve the affordability and technical limitations, I and many other prospective purchasers are sticking with ICE, or transitioning to a PHEV/HEV.

 

Looking at my crystal ball, best case scenario of when BEV's might meet all my needs is 5 yrs, realistically I project 8 - 10 yrs.

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

10 years from now is 2033. Ford's target for an all electric vehicle lineup in "leading markets" is 2035. While there is a possibility that Ford still sells ICE vehicles new in 2033, at the rate things are going, it's quite likely that Ford will fully transition to all electric by 2033.

Maybe in European markets, where EVs are being adopted at a much higher rate. But I'm willing to bet a solid half of Ford's N. American sales in 2033 are still ICE products. 

[jpd80]

Hypothetical,

Solit state batteries arrive in the next five years, power density increases by three times

which would mean two things are possible

1,  current battery sizes and weights in existing BEVs, HEVs and PHEVs now become a third of size and weight

2. All the above vehicle types  keep current size weight battery but have three times the range, better in HEV and PHEV?

 

Both so those scenarios appeal to me because it gives manufacturers and buyers a lot more choices,

the key here is increased energy density and weight reduction with bigger batteries.

[paintguy]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Hypothetical,

Solit state batteries arrive in the next five years, power density increases by three times

which would mean two things are possible

1,  current battery sizes and weights in existing BEVs, HEVs and PHEVs now become a third of size and weight

2. All the above vehicle types  keep current size weight battery but have three times the range, better in HEV and PHEV?

 

Both so those scenarios appeal to me because it gives manufacturers and buyers a lot more choices,

the key here is increased energy density and weight reduction with bigger batteries.

If those things happen, at similar or better pricing, I would consider. But in my lifetime, I've been promised nuclear power "too cheap to meter", practical fusion in 10 years (50 years ago) and countless automaker show cars with features too numerous to mention. Seems there is progress. Researchers though need funding. Lofty promises help keep the dollars or euros and yen flowing.

[silvrsvt]

11 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

In addition to those issues you also have limited range, which is further reduced by using the cabin heater or AC. I have no doubt technology will improve over time and prices may become affordable, but those issues are significant impediments to a BEV meeting the needs of many prospective purchasers. Charging is also 2 separate issues, time to charge and limited availability of charging stations that work.

 

While they try to resolve the affordability and technical limitations, I and many other prospective purchasers are sticking with ICE, or transitioning to a PHEV/HEV.

 

Looking at my crystal ball, best case scenario of when BEV's might meet all my needs is 5 yrs, realistically I project 8 - 10 yrs.

 

IMO the Range/charging thing goes hand in hand...if you can easily charge your car almost anywhere you go its not a problem. Sometimes I think people have it that you need to charge every time you drive an EV, when that is far from the truth and the range impact of hot/cold for daily driving is not as big of an impact if you can charge easily (if you have charging at home or work). Typical commuting distance is about 41 miles round trip, so even with the shortest Range Mach E you'd be ale to get to work 5 days without charging even in cold/hot weather (range is 250 miles)

 

With a range of lets say 280 miles or so distance wise (to give you a bit of a wiggle room), that works out to about being able to drive almost 5 hours in one direction (if your averaging 60 MPH)...taking a break for 20-30 minutes to charge/eat isn't nessarly a bad thing at that point. 

[silvrsvt]

15 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Not only are 50 MPG vehicles available today at affordable prices, they also don’t require billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade the electrical power system that will otherwise lead to blackouts.  That’s an added bonus.

 

The issue is those 50 MPG vehicles are the same compromised vehicles that people don't want/demand either. So your basically telling buyers hey buy this instead of what you really want. 

The vehicles that are in demand are lucky to see 25-30 MPG in hybrid form. 

 

But say if you moved to a Lightning (vs a F-150 powerboost), you'd basically tripled your MPGs.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Sadly, most Americans prefer to live in debt surrounded by supersized trucks and homes.

 

Meanwhile, I and the rest of the world have gotten by just fine driving those 50 MPG cars and enjoying our modest homes, bought with cash...

[rperez817]

41 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue is those 50 MPG vehicles are the same compromised vehicles that people don't want/demand either. So your basically telling buyers hey buy this instead of what you really want. 

The vehicles that are in demand are lucky to see 25-30 MPG in hybrid form. 

 

But say if you moved to a Lightning (vs a F-150 powerboost), you'd basically tripled your MPGs.

 

This brings up the issue of "what customers really want" versus "what customers really need". Some people who drive pickup trucks really need the capabilities of that vehicle type. Transitioning those customers from an ICE powered F-150 to F-150 Lightning for example will make a dramatic difference. Particularly low- and middle-income gasoline "superusers" that use their pickup truck for both work and for personal use and devote a large portion of their incomes to vehicle fueling and maintenance.

 

 

 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

The issue is those 50 MPG vehicles are the same compromised vehicles that people don't want/demand either. So your basically telling buyers hey buy this instead of what you really want. 

Last I checked, fuel efficient hybrids, many of which are already achieving efficiency in 50 MPG range, are doing quite well.  Actually, if you removed Tesla from data (by far dominant in BEV sales), leaving all other manufacturers competing for remaining non-Tesla sales, hybrids are a huge opportunity.  Data below speaks for itself.  Long-term BEVs should dominate, but short-term Hybrids should not be ignored.  It’s just good business.

 

By the way, you don’t really know what size vehicle the next generation of buyers will want.  We are all guessing.  As an example, in last decade we saw tremendous downsizing in the RV industry, where van campers now outnumber large Class A motorhomes.  Many buyers are now willing to pay the same or more for less size.  Ten years ago it was practically unheard of.  Also, when I visit college campus, I now see 1,000s of scooters everywhere, and of all different sizes.  When these young students become buyers, will they go directly to 3-row SUVs even though many don’t even plan on having families, and of those who do, plan on fewer children (like 1 or 2)?  My point is that there is still a lot of demand for smaller fuel-efficient cars from Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc.

 

[silvrsvt]

21 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Last I checked, fuel efficient hybrids, many of which are already achieving efficiency in 50 MPG range, are doing quite well.  Actually, if you removed Tesla from data (by far dominant in BEV sales), leaving all other manufacturers competing for remaining non-Tesla sales, hybrids are a huge opportunity.  Data below speaks for itself.  Long-term BEVs should dominate, but short-term Hybrids should not be ignored.  It’s just good business.

 

I think we are talking in circles here-no one said that short term (pre 2030) that adding more Hybrids would be a bad thing (well maybe one person) but in the grand scheme of things, product has been locked in for the next 4-5 years and anything coming new in the post 2028CY shouldn't most likely have any ICE in it. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by silvrsvt

[Rangers09]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

IMO the Range/charging thing goes hand in hand...if you can easily charge your car almost anywhere you go its not a problem. Sometimes I think people have it that you need to charge every time you drive an EV, when that is far from the truth and the range impact of hot/cold for daily driving is not as big of an impact if you can charge easily (if you have charging at home or work). Typical commuting distance is about 41 miles round trip, so even with the shortest Range Mach E you'd be ale to get to work 5 days without charging even in cold/hot weather (range is 250 miles)

 

With a range of lets say 280 miles or so distance wise (to give you a bit of a wiggle room), that works out to about being able to drive almost 5 hours in one direction (if your averaging 60 MPH)...taking a break for 20-30 minutes to charge/eat isn't nessarly a bad thing at that point. 

 

Your making the assumption that the charger works and doesn't already have a queue of other BEV's waiting for it. Both issues are regular feedback from many owners, embarking on longer trips.

[silvrsvt]

8 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Your making the assumption that the charger works and doesn't already have a queue of other BEV's waiting for it. Both issues are regular feedback from many owners, embarking on longer trips.

 

And the charging situation is still being built out-it will improve as time goes on. 

[Rangers09]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue is those 50 MPG vehicles are the same compromised vehicles that people don't want/demand either. So your basically telling buyers hey buy this instead of what you really want. 

The vehicles that are in demand are lucky to see 25-30 MPG in hybrid form. 

 

But say if you moved to a Lightning (vs a F-150 powerboost), you'd basically tripled your MPGs.

 

Back when we were younger with a mortgage and kids, we didn't purchase the vehicles we really wanted, for the simple reason is we couldn't afford them. Both he capital AND operating costs of a more comfortable and less fuel efficient vehicle, were beyond our means and taking out loans just put you further behind.

 

I purchased an early 90's base model Festiva for under CAN $9K, driving it for 6 - 7 years, putting on 200,000 + miles at an average of about 70 mpg. In those days, I certainly couldn't afford a F-150, never mind a F-450, so even if they were available, I certainly couldn't afford a BEV.

 

Today's customers needing a 50 mpg vehicle most likely couldn't afford a BEV, so I highly doubt they would be an option.

[Rangers09]

16 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And the charging situation is still being built out-it will improve as time goes on. 

 

Nobody is arguing that point.

 

The fact remains that the current lack of operational charging stations precludes me and many others from purchasing a BEV, as the lack of charging doesn't meet my needs. Once they have sufficient charging stations and they address the capital cost and other technology issues, I will consider changing from a PHEV to a BEV.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

This brings up the issue of "what customers really want" versus "what customers really need". Some people who drive pickup trucks really need the capabilities of that vehicle type. Transitioning those customers from an ICE powered F-150 to F-150 Lightning for example will make a dramatic difference. Particularly low- and middle-income gasoline "superusers" that use their pickup truck for both work and for personal use and devote a large portion of their incomes to vehicle fueling and maintenance.

 

 

 

At 15k miles per year, 20 miles per gallon and $3.50/gallon that’s only $219/month.  And no way maintenance is anywhere near $300/month.  5 years is 1 brake job, 2 coolant changes and 1 tranny service plus 10 oil changes.  That’s less than $2500 or $500/yr.  Tires don’t count because that’s the same as a BEV.

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

Yes, as cars are more fuel efficient, small increases have less noticeable results, but regardless they are still positive.

That is a great thing meaning there is already much less consumption, hence less remaining waste to eliminate.  We don’t have to get stuck comparing compact cars that achieve 50 MPG, but looking at government CO2 data shows hybrid cars (even those size of Accord or Camry) can produce less GHGs than some larger BEV SUVs and pickups.

 

When Elon Musk expressed his opinion that industry is not transitioning to BEVs fast enough, I wonder if he has concerns that if hybrids become even more popular, it may adversely affect BEV sales.  From a fuel/energy standpoint, hybrids can make spending a lot more for a BEV harder to justify.

 

Environmentally, if a buyer transitioned from average vehicle producing around 400 g/mile CO2 to a RWD Mach-E, it would reduce CO2 to 140 g/mile (assuming average US electricity).  That’s pretty good, but most of that reduction can also be gained by driving a hybrid Accord or Camry.  More efficient hybrids make difference versus Mach-E even less.  To me choice is not only BEV vs ICE, but also whether downsizing is an option.  For many buyers I think it is.

[silvrsvt]

9 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

Today's customers needing a 50 mpg vehicle most likely couldn't afford a BEV, so I highly doubt they would be an option.

 

 

but your just moving the goal posts now...if its not this, this that

 

Cars are expensive-a few year old sedan commands 20K used. 

 

Dumbasses have $1000+ monthly car payments

[GearheadGrrrl]

I've read the "superuser" study, problem is that an electric pickup won't work for many F150 owners because they tow a lot and that cuts range to below what these 30K median miles a year drivers can accept. For the Super Duty size superusers, the range reduction would make a BEV nearly useless.

[silvrsvt]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

At 15k miles per year, 20 miles per gallon and $3.50/gallon that’s only $219/month.  And no way maintenance is anywhere near $300/month.  5 years is 1 brake job, 2 coolant changes and 1 tranny service plus 10 oil changes.  That’s less than $2500 or $500/yr.  Tires don’t count because that’s the same as a BEV.

 

More info here:

https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers-2-report/

Using California gas pricing-$375 using your figures. Not sure where they are getting $300 a month for maintenance, unless they are figuring saving for major repairs?

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think we are talking in circles here

Over and over and over.  
 

All you guys are arguing about is how quickly BEVs will become mainstream (which nobody really knows at this point) and whether it makes sense to do more HEVs and PHEVs - which depends entirely on the answer to the first question which nobody really knows.

 

Given the recent plateau of BEV sales (even in Europe)  I think mfrs will have to look at more HEVs and  PHEVs as an interim offering and the market will decide how long they last.  And CAFE wont matter if BEV prices, range and charging infrastructure don’t drastically improve.

[rperez817]

26 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

When Elon Musk expressed his opinion that industry is not transitioning to BEVs fast enough, I wonder if he has concerns that if hybrids become even more popular, it may adversely affect BEV sales. 

 

Musk's concern is that some legacy automakers are going to face bankruptcy if they don't pick up the pace of transitioning to BEV (and AV as well), though he didn't mention specific company names.

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by rperez817

[silvrsvt]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

Given the recent plateau of BEV sales (even in Europe)  I think mfrs will have to look at more HEVs and  PHEVs as an interim offering and the market will decide how long they last.  And CAFE wont matter if BEV prices, range and charging infrastructure don’t drastically improve.

 

Apparently the UK is looking at pushing back its EV mandate also 

 

Ford UK says any delay on government petrol car ban risks EV transition

 

Like said before, pricing and financing rates aren't helping things either. 

[ice-capades]

This "What Customers Really Want" topic has transitioned into the topic I no longer want to read. It's simply deteriorated into an endless series of posts by a few individuals playing a game of one-upmanship, otherwise known as a pissing match. Enough already!

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Musk's concern is that some legacy automakers are going to face bankruptcy if they don't pick up the pace of transitioning to BEV (and AV as well), though he didn't mention specific company names.

Why would that be a bad thing for Tesla?  He’s not that altruistic.  We should ask what is in it for him and Tesla.