Thanks, lots more reading to do, time value of money and lifespan are very worthwhile considering.
Not exactly a sophisticated piece of work, I have to say. It makes the basic error of ignoring the time value of money, equating a Euro spent in year 1 with a Euro saved in year 10. No allowance for cost of capital at all
Thanks, lots more reading to do, time value of money and lifespan are very worthwhile considering."Our pricing research shows that buying an electric car doesn’t necessarily guarantee you’ll save money in the long run. Yes, you’ll pay less for fuel each year, but the high price of purchase makes that all but redundant."
Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/0...ectric-cars-could-push-more-people-to-petrol/ - Which?
moneysupermarket.co.uk came to a similar conclusion, finding that the TCO for petrol vehicles was less than that for equivalent EVs when looked at over a six year period.
Autoexpress.co.uk put it like this: "The average total cost of buying a new electric car in 2020 and driving it for just under 14 years - the average lifespan of a car - has been calculated as £52,133. Doing the same with a petrol-powered model would cost £53,625." I'll just point out our that 14 years is a lllllloooooonnnnngggggg payback time for miniscule savings of about 2%.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/352747/electric-cars-are-cheaper-own-petrol-cars
I presume they are comparing equivalent models so perhaps the i30 with the same spec and engine output as the ioniq costs 45k?The price comparison is not very clear. I decided to pop in my hyaundi i30 versus the hyaundi Ioniq3. Comparison
It tells me the price of the EV is €40K versus €45K for the i30. But I know I purchased my i30 for €23K, 3 years ago and so I checked out my dealers website and they list the new i30 at €29K so maybe I am not comparing like with like here. There was a * next the price so I am unsure what that means.
The SEAI website says total cost of ownership is €40K for the EV and €83K for the i30. And the calculation is Price + (Annual Energy Costs + Tax + Maintenance) x lifespan) - SEAI Grant - VRT reduction
So for my i30 it would be €23K+((75x52 diesel a week) + 290Tax+400insurance+700 service and repair+NCT+Tyres) x 10 years lifespan. That gives me €23K+(5290 x 10), so €76K total over 10 years.
And for the Ioniq3 it is €40K+(227+290+400+600)x 10. That gives €40K+(1517x 10), So €55K total over 10 years. I have not added the grant or the vrt rebate because I don’t know how much they are.
So €2K saving a year to go EV for me. But maybe I have too many assumptions in my calculations, I am comparing my car cost 2.5 years ago to new today, I am not sure if I do spend €75 a week on diesel, not sure of tax costs on EV or annual repairs, service or nct, or tyres etc. But having done the calculations I would be very tempted the next time I change my car. And yes I do, long trips (cork-Dublin return tomorrow, cork -Tipperary return Tuesday) so range would worry me a bit, but €4 a week electricity cost is very good value.
Maybe you should do as you appear to have all the answers!Not exactly a sophisticated piece of work, I have to say. It makes the basic error of ignoring the time value of money, equating a Euro spent in year 1 with a Euro saved in year 10. No allowance for cost of capital at all. Assumes ALL EV charging is done at the night rate cost of 9.5c, including VAT, per kWh!
And that's just off the top of my head having had a quick look; I'm sure there are other dubious methodologies if you drill deeper. Which you can't really, because it doesn't show it's working out in any level of easily accessible detail.
Plus, of course, the SEAI's role is to encourage the use of EVs so they're not exactly unbiased assessors! I've looked at some similar UK studies and the general consensus appears to be that you have to own your EV for a LONG time before its TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) falls below that of an equivalent ICE. Consumer advocate group, Which, who are generally highly regarded for their independence, put it as follows:
"Our pricing research shows that buying an electric car doesn’t necessarily guarantee you’ll save money in the long run. Yes, you’ll pay less for fuel each year, but the high price of purchase makes that all but redundant."
Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/0...ectric-cars-could-push-more-people-to-petrol/ - Which?
moneysupermarket.co.uk came to a similar conclusion, finding that the TCO for petrol vehicles was less than that for equivalent EVs when looked at over a six year period.
Autoexpress.co.uk put it like this: "The average total cost of buying a new electric car in 2020 and driving it for just under 14 years - the average lifespan of a car - has been calculated as £52,133. Doing the same with a petrol-powered model would cost £53,625." I'll just point out our that 14 years is a lllllloooooonnnnngggggg payback time for miniscule savings of about 2%.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/352747/electric-cars-are-cheaper-own-petrol-cars
Obviously, UK and Irish costs are not like for like, particularly the uniquely Irish imposition of VRT, but they're not that hugely dissimilar. I would say the case for EVs having a lower TCO is unproven at best.
It would be interesting to see some detailed and robust Irish studies on TCO for EVs and ICE.
I don't! I'm merely making the point that the answer is far from clear.Maybe you should do as you appear to have all the answers!
Indeed, good for you! That does appear to restrict you to a radius of 50% of your EVs range, though. And in practice, somewhat less than that to allow for a bit of variation in driving style, use of heater or AC, cold weather, carrying luggage etc etc. If that's your requirement, and your EV fulfils it, great. My requirements are different and there's no way I could avoid recharging away from my home.And all my charging is at night rate so yeay for me.
Indeed, I'd agree. But doesn't that raise its own question? If EVs are all the rage (and they are) and there's tremendous government and industry pressure to go electric (and there is) isn't it a little bit, well, odd that it's so hard to find a comprehensive robust analysis that shows definitively that the TCO for EVs beats ICE for most drivers????And by the way the articles you linked aren’t amazing pieces of work either, the money supermarket isn’t taking specific models just comparing in generalities, hard to see if it’s a fair comparison.
Not quite sure about these "most studies" you speak of. I'd like to see an example of such a study with clear robust methodology and reasonable assumptions. Given that the existence of such studies would be a huge marketing coup for the EV industry, the apparent absence of such studies allows us to draw appropriate inferences, does it not?Anyway as I’ve said before buying a new car is expensive whatever way you do it, the cheapest thing to do is keep the car you have or buy a 10 year old ice car. If you are buying a new car based on most studies the TCO of an ev is less or equivalent to an equivalent petrol so cost isn’t a reason not to.
You will poke holes with any study because it doesn’t reflect your use case . Have you got a robust study that proves the opposite?I don't! I'm merely making the point that the answer is far from clear.
Indeed, good for you! That does appear to restrict you to a radius of 50% of your EVs range, though. And in practice, somewhat less than that to allow for a bit of variation in driving style, use of heater or AC, cold weather, carrying luggage etc etc. If that's your requirement, and your EV fulfils it, great. My requirements are different and there's no way I could avoid recharging away from my home.
Indeed, I'd agree. But doesn't that raise its own question? If EVs are all the rage (and they are) and there's tremendous government and industry pressure to go electric (and there is) isn't it a little bit, well, odd that it's so hard to find a comprehensive robust analysis that shows definitively that the TCO for EVs beats ICE for most drivers????
Not quite sure about these "most studies" you speak of. I'd like to see an example of such a study with clear robust methodology and reasonable assumptions. Given that the existence of such studies would be a huge marketing coup for the EV industry, the apparent absence of such studies allows us to draw appropriate inferences, does it not?
Ah here now, the internet doesn't work like that! You made the definitive claim that "...based on most studies the TCO of an ev is less or equivalent to an equivalent petrol..." so the proposition is all yours to prove rather than mine to disprove.You will poke holes with any study because it doesn’t reflect your use case . Have you got a robust study that proves the opposite?
Bought my wife a fiat 500 hybrid the weekend . She is only ever in the car alone . We have a larger mpv for weekends . She loves it . Great little carThat's the thing with purchases like cars where the heart often plays a bigger role than the head. If everyone was to do the maths, most would end up owning something like Fiat 500s or not buying one at all. I'm not sure what formula would spit out the Hyundai Tucson as the logical choice, but that was the best selling car here last year.
People also like to have flexibility and so put a value on that. The premium for an ~80kWh battery over a ~60kWh one is ~€7k, some people would consider that well worthwhile for an additional 30% of range.
I’ve shared different sources with you, even some you have quoted make the same claim, you don’t like any of them,Ah here now, the internet doesn't work like that! You made the definitive claim that "...based on most studies the TCO of an ev is less or equivalent to an equivalent petrol..." so the proposition is all yours to prove rather than mine to disprove.
I merely said that I'd like to see an example of such a study. And that the absence of same being trumpeted from the rooftops by the EV industry leads one in a particular direction - that the economic case for EVs is unproven and marginal at best.
Unless I've missed something (always possible in a long thread, and if so I apologize) you've shared exactly ONE source, that being the SEAI comparison site.I’ve shared different sources with you, even some you have quoted make the same claim, you don’t like any of them,
It's utterly pointless and unreasonable of you to demand that I should somehow disprove your contention that EVs have a lower TCO. You made the claim; you prove it! If there were definitive, robust studies with sound methodologies, this would be a settled issue and would be beyond argument one way or another. It isn't though, is it? And that speaks volumes.Present something that proves the contrary then.
It pointless and unreasonable to poo poo everything without offering evidence to the contrary aswell but we are where we are.Unless I've missed something (always possible in a long thread, and if so I apologize) you've shared exactly ONE source, that being the SEAI comparison site.
I've referred to three, all of which are flawed in their own way, but are fairly representative of UK studies that you can easily find online.
It's utterly pointless and unreasonable of you to demand that I should somehow disprove your contention that EVs have a lower TCO. You made the claim; you prove it! If there were definitive, robust studies with sound methodologies, this would be a settled issue and would be beyond argument one way or another. It isn't though, is it? And that speaks volumes.
I don't have a study but always think the taxi industry is good to observe. Taxi drivers are better than the general public at choosing reliable and economical cars (e.g. there are more Prius and less Alfa Romeos as taxis than in the general population). And it looks to me as though the taxis are moving towards EVs.I merely said that I'd like to see an example of such a study. And that the absence of same being trumpeted from the rooftops by the EV industry leads one in a particular direction - that the economic case for EVs is unproven and marginal at best.
It's very hard to do detailed like for like studies since driving style etc has a material impact on fuel economy.Unless I've missed something (always possible in a long thread, and if so I apologize) you've shared exactly ONE source, that being the SEAI comparison site.
I've referred to three, all of which are flawed in their own way, but are fairly representative of UK studies that you can easily find online.
It's utterly pointless and unreasonable of you to demand that I should somehow disprove your contention that EVs have a lower TCO. You made the claim; you prove it! If there were definitive, robust studies with sound methodologies, this would be a settled issue and would be beyond argument one way or another. It isn't though, is it? And that speaks volumes.
That's actually a very interesting article, the guy does his homework, I'll grant you that. And his figures and assumptions seem reasonable. He also makes the point that battery range and price are on constantly improving curves, and therefore the EV of 5 years from now will be a significantly better (and cheaper) product than today's EV. In my opinion, this makes an EV a very dodgy investment right now.It pointless and unreasonable to poo poo everything without offering evidence to the contrary aswell but we are where we are.
Here is someone comparing comparable cars , id3 v the golf . They even provide spreadsheets for you to put your own assumptions into
Volkswagen ID.3 vs. Volkswagen Golf â 5 Year Cost of Ownership Comparisons - CleanTechnica
Tagging onto my article from yesterday on Volkswagen ID.3 cost of ownership versus cost of ownership of the Renault Megane or Skoda Octavia, here's a brief followup for perhaps a more common comparison vehicle â the Volkswagen Golf.cleantechnica.com
That's actually a very interesting article, the guy does his homework, I'll grant you that. And his figures and assumptions seem reasonable. He also makes the point that battery range and price are on constantly improving curves, and therefore the EV of 5 years from now will be a significantly better (and cheaper) product than today's EV. In my opinion, this makes an EV a very dodgy investment right now.
BTW I'm glad you accept that the ID3 is comparable to the Golf. It doesn't seem all that long ago I was getting pilloried (by your good self?) for that exact claim while being told it was really comparable to a Passat!
So if you're investing in a car now which fuel is not a dodgy investment? Consider that as things stand EVs are holding their value better than ICE. And that includes 3/4/5 year old EVs.He also makes the point that battery range and price are on constantly improving curves, and therefore the EV of 5 years from now will be a significantly better (and cheaper) product than today's EV. In my opinion, this makes an EV a very dodgy investment right now.
Good question! The basic problem is that we are on the cusp of game-changing new technology in the motor industry. As with any new technology, there is an early-adopter penalty if you buy in too soon. But equally, there's issues if you stick with the older technology. Petrol and diesel are going out of fashion, the manufacturers can't ditch them soon enough, and both fuels and vehicles will probably be taxed into oblivion anyway by the enviro-zealots. That makes a new ICE purchase very risky in my view - who'll want it in 5 years time? Possibly there's a viable strategy about buying new, or nearly new, now and holding for a decade or so until the EV market is mature. The problem with that is the enviro-zealots again who will impose ever increasing fuel taxes and road taxes on vehicles they don't like.So if you're investing in a car now which fuel is not a dodgy investment?
I'm sure you're right. For the reasons above I expect that to change as EV technology improves in leaps and bounds.Consider that as things stand EVs are holding their value better than ICE. And that includes 3/4/5 year old EVs.
Indeed. They occupy similar niches in the market.i stand by what i said, and you know what i said. In terms of price and external dimensions the Golf and the ID3 are similar cars.
There's two elements to internal space, cabin space for passengers and boot space for luggage. The Passat is amply provided with both. The id3 isn't. You can only get Passat carrying capacity by sacrificing the rear seats! They are not comparable!The internal space for passengers in the ID3 is equvalent to a passat, thats from the horses mouth not me.
I am utterly consistent. My point is we are being encouraged to adopt an immature technology which undoubtedly holds great promise, but still has major problems with price and range.You are continuing to move the goal posts once you receive what you asked for which would make me question your bona fides in this debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?