For the record, since apparently my opinion matters in some way...
I think both the black-box-power-plant (Doug's current post) AND percentage-impact-of-aerodynamics (Doug's original post) angles of evaluation have some merit.
More on the latter (to perhaps clarify, perhaps not) ...
If you put a 20% efficient ICE against a 30% efficient ICE (with other characteristics such as drag and weight being equal) then I don't expect the impact of drag adjustments to have much impact.
If you put a 90% efficient engine against a 30% efficient engine (w.o.c.s.a.d.a.w.b.e.) then I
do expect the impact of drag adjustments to have a more significant impact.
Why? The 30% efficient engine is spending 3x the fuel of the 90% engine, and so the impact is amplified w/r/t fuel consumption.
Of course, this is only if the impact of drag is something non-trivial. If the impact a drag is trivial, then even the amplified values remain round-off error compared to other factors.
Now getting back to this...
Aero wheels have been around forever and would help an ICE efficiency just as much as an EV. If anything, the small efficiency gain would be much more valuable on an ICE due to gas costs.
This adds an additional characterization: "value".
Let's assume for a moment an optimistic ICE assessment: a 5% improvement in aerodynamics is worth twice as much on an ICE as with an EV.
Even with that assumption, leaping to "more valuable" isn't a valid conclusion.
When I reserved my Model S, I immediately focused on the longest range battery available. If price becomes a factor, then drop the Perf, then the Sig...but keep the 85 kWh. Some people won't agree, but that's my mindset.
With every vehicle prior to my Model S, I haven't even been aware of the size of the gas tank until after purchase.
Thus, for me, aerodynamics are far less valuable -- even at twice the payback -- for ICE than for EV.
Edit: I'll take it a step further. Does any consumer vehicle manufacturer offer a larger gas tank as an option on any of their vehicles?