the 95% use of this car will be 18mi round trip commute, but I can't help but think in terms of longer range is better if not for me directly then for long-term value of the car.
Here was my decision tree:
95% of my uses will require zero en-route or even destination charging. 50% of my longer trips will be just 1 mid-trip recharge/destination.
With a 240 mi range, I can easily go almost 400 miles charging en-route and then topping off overnight at a desgination charger. Living in NJ, 400 miles gets me "almost anywhere" I could want to go.
With the exception of summer vacation. If the diff in SR+ and LR is $10k, so I need to pay $10k for 10 years works of annual vacations that I don't fly to? That's $1k/yr for this one-off trip. I can rent a large vehicle for a week for about $500. So best case, I'm still ahead $500/yr over 10 years by renting a car for those long trips.
My g/f said "how will you move furniture?" OK, I'm on my 3rd consecutive Subaru Outback and *love* the hauling capabilities. But guess what, I 'haul stuff' maybe 2 or 3 times a year. And said g/f drives a Honda Pilot. And there's a U-Haul about a mile from my house right next to the Big Box stores and they rent pickup trucks and small moving vans for $20/day.
So my decision was based on the negatives to the car being easily solved very cheaply for those "edge cases" as we call them in software engineering.
I'm looking forward to my first "road trip" this w/e - 100 miles each way. Wanting to not drive 55, I will charge - there's no destination charger at my hotel, but a supercharger at that exit on the highway, so I'll top off before my ride back home easily. With a 240 mi range, I could probably drive 65 MPH on the nose and get there and back, who knows. Maybe I'll drive "slow" on the way out and see what the state is and decide if I need to or not.