The Automobile 2.0: Chevrolet Bolt EV vs Nissan LEAF vs Tesla Model 3 Long Range

[AceSkywalker]

$35,000 is almost exactly the cost of the average new car these days, so by definition it’s affordable to half the buyers of new cars.

People are buying vehicles that they really shouldn't be buying, financed by 9/10-year-long loans they really shouldn't be taking out. Take it as you wish, but by no means is the Model 3 an affordable car, even with the math that Tesla shows.

I don't consider the 3 an affordable car, and I have the means to buy a well-equipped S. Me getting a 3 would blow the price of other vehicles I've bought out of the sky (I recently bought a Civic for $19k the dealer wanted to get rid of - that's affordable).

 

[Runt8]

People are buying vehicles that they really shouldn't be buying, financed by 9/10-year-long loans they really shouldn't be taking out. Take it as you wish, but by no means is the Model 3 an affordable car, even with the math that Tesla shows.

I don't consider the 3 an affordable car, and I have the means to buy a well-equipped S. Me getting a 3 would blow the price of other vehicles I've bought out of the sky (I recently bought a Civic for $19k the dealer wanted to get rid of - that's affordable).

Affordable just means someone can pay for it. Whether or not it's a smart use of funds is another question...

 

[voip-ninja]

$35,000 is almost exactly the cost of the average new car these days, so by definition it’s affordable to half the buyers of new cars.

Sure and the median income level in the US is $59,000 which means that many families are purchasing cars that work out to about 70%+ of their annual family income.

Which is simply absurd and financially foolish. Whatever.

For decades people paid cash for cars and the typical car might amount to 10-20% of the annual income of the purchaser. In some cases you might see someone spring for a car that amounted to 30% of their income.

With today's "always in debt" mentality we see people buying way more car than they can realistically afford.

New Cars Are Too Expensive for the Typical Family, Study Finds

 

[SageBrush]

(I recently bought a Civic for $19k the dealer wanted to get rid of - that's affordable).

I bought a LEAF for $7000 and a Prius Prime for $17k, both prices after credits. Between the two cars we drive ~ 16k miles a year and spend $20 a month on fuel, $40 a month combined on car insurance.

Your Civic was no bargain.

 

[SageBrush]

$35,000 is almost exactly the cost of the average new car these days, so by definition it’s affordable to half the buyers of new cars.

The average sedan price is much lower than $35k, and the median sedan price is in the $23k range. Your figure is the average for all passenger vehicles.

 

[voip-ninja]

Wow - there are a lot of accusations directly about me in there... Are you sure you even meant to respond to me? All I asked is why the interest in an EV when not considering any of those criteria.

I agree that Teslas are cool and have fun gadget factor and it's ok to want one for that... I was just surprised that someone who didn't consider any of the other things as factors at all would want one...

I'm coming from a ~4.5 second 0-60 car that gets ~20mpg, I wouldn't say I'm exactly a crusader. Personally I would order my interests as:

Autopilot
Active Safety
Low TCO
Fun of massive torque
Passive safety
No more gas
Ultra-low emissions
Other performance aspects
Believing in Tesla's mission to accelerate sustainable transport

I guess having total cost of ownership and low emissions on the list at all makes me an "Environmental crusader" who "claims that 0.1% of global sales is saving the planet".....

Not sure what I ever did to you, but wow.

You didn't do anything to me other than rub me the wrong way.

There are a LOT of people that are purchasing Tesla for environmental reasons but I don't believe that the majority of buyers are purchasing a Tesla for environmental or TCO reasons.

I think a LOT of people are purchasing a Tesla for other reasons. When I ran a poll about the primary reason people were planning purchase of a Model 3 the #2 reason was "save the planet/environmentalism" and amazingly there were people in that thread pissed off that anyone was buying the car for any other reason than saving the planet.

The idea that buying a highly priced luxury car that 99.9% of people can't afford is somehow going to save the planet is simply absurd. Whatever.

So, maybe you didn't intend for your post to come across that way, but it kind of did.

Sorry.

 

[SageBrush]

For decades people paid cash for cars and the typical car might amount to 10-20% of the annual income of the purchaser.

Yeah, and they bought American POC that they felt obliged to trade-in after 3 years or marry a car mechanic. If anything, buying a reliable, safe car today and keeping it well maintained is cheaper today than your fantasy good old times.

 

[voip-ninja]

I bought a LEAF for $7000 and a Prius Prime for $17k, both prices after credits. Between the two cars we drive ~ 16k miles a year and spend $20 a month on fuel, $40 a month combined on car insurance.

Your Civic was no bargain.

That's relative. You have no idea what his income is or what % of it he is throwing at transportation. Bill Gates drove the same Honda Accord for something like 12 years even after his net worth was in the 100's of millions of dollars. Was his car a "bargain" considering he could have just bought a small automaker instead?

From polls conducted here we see that there are many people that are stretching, to crazy levels even, to "afford" a Model 3.

On the other hand there are people here who can write a check for an S or an X and are still debating on if the 3 makes financial sense for them to purchase.

 

[voip-ninja]

Yeah, and they bought American POC that they felt obliged to trade-in after 3 years or marry a car mechanic.

Wrong. I'm talking about the 30+ years of car purchases starting in the 40's when people purchased a car that they then kept/drove for 15+ years.

Buying disposable cars that get traded in a few years is a relatively new phenomenon and is somewhat unique to the USA. It is also only made possible by cheap credit.

 

[dss33]

Wrong. I'm talking about the 30+ years of car purchases starting in the 40's when people purchased a car that they then kept/drove for 15+ years.

Buying disposable cars that get traded in a few years is a relatively new phenomenon and is somewhat unique to the USA. It is also only made possible by cheap credit.

And it's directly related, to a large extent, to the rate of technological progress we're experiencing. 60 years ago, I'd argue that the rate of automobile advancements and new features that we see now every 3 - 5 years was probably happening every 10 - 15. Anecdotal numbers, but you get the point. Not that we NEED to be getting new cars that often, but there's at least more of a justification for it relative to the 40s and 50s in terms of newness and tangible reasons (functions) for purchasing a new vehicle.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm talking about the 30+ years of car purchases starting in the 40's when people purchased a car that they then kept/drove for 15+ years.

You do not have a clue.

Start here: Average age of cars on U.S. roads breaks record
Correct for inflation

Get a clue

 

[SageBrush]

That's relative. You have no idea what his income is or what % of it he is throwing at transportation.

His denominator, his higher numerator.

 

[voip-ninja]

You do not have a clue.

Start here: Average age of cars on U.S. roads breaks record
Correct for inflation

Get a clue

You were saying?

Yet Americans are buying cars at an annualized rate of more than 17 million vehicles, marking a high not seen since before the Great Recession. In fact, U.S. vehicle owners bought 42% more cars than they scrapped in 2014, according to IHS. The number of light vehicles registered in the U.S. hit an all-time high of 257.9 million units.
Simple: They're either keeping the old ones along with the new ones — know anyone who bought a new car and kept their old one in the driveway? — or the vehicle made its way into the used-car market, where someone else bought it..

Your article also only looks back about 25 years.

When I was a kid I didn't know a single family that had a car newer than about 10 years old. A car that was 5 or so years old was a "new" car (not any friends of mine, but people talked).

I would like to say I simply don't care what people do with their money, but that would be a lie. Too many people are too quick to spend all of the income they have, living paycheck to paycheck and then expect people like myself to pay for necessities that they were too busy living it up to worry about.

 

[206er]

We've owned and leased and have realized that having the latest tech and safety features every 36 months trumps any tco considerations. The longest we've ever owned a car is 5 years, which was a loan we paid off early and ended when the car was totaled after being hit by a city bus. I sure wish Tesla offered a lease on the 3, and am excited by the car subscription model starting up with Volvo and others next year.

 

[run-the-joules]

We've owned and leased and have realized that having the latest tech and safety features every 36 months trumps any tco considerations. The longest we've ever owned a car is 5 years, which was a loan we paid off early and ended when the car was totaled after being hit by a city bus. I sure wish Tesla offered a lease on the 3, and am excited by the car subscription model starting up with Volvo and others next year.

I'm sure they'll offer a lease, just not at first. Same thing happened with the X. Personally I hate leasing and will never do it, but I understand the appeal to some I suppose.

 

[scaesare]

Hmm.. Maybe we have some answers...

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

You didn't do anything to me other than rub me the wrong way.

There are a LOT of people that are purchasing Tesla for environmental reasons but I don't believe that the majority of buyers are purchasing a Tesla for environmental or TCO reasons.

I think a LOT of people are purchasing a Tesla for other reasons. When I ran a poll about the primary reason people were planning purchase of a Model 3 the #2 reason was "save the planet/environmentalism" and amazingly there were people in that thread pissed off that anyone was buying the car for any other reason than saving the planet.

The idea that buying a highly priced luxury car that 99.9% of people can't afford is somehow going to save the planet is simply absurd. Whatever.

So, maybe you didn't intend for your post to come across that way, but it kind of did.

Sorry.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I think you're leaving one thing out, which is that Tesla is the only manufacturer serious about EVs.

People can buy compliance EVs until the cows come home, but that won't lead to widespread adoption of EVs as long as existing auto manufacturers aren't serious about them, or at least as serious as they should or could be.

Tesla on the other hand, is pedal to the metal on EVs, and they're the one pushing the market. Without Tesla, I'm not sure if we would even have the current crop of (mostly) compliance EVs, and I'm positive we wouldn't be rapidly approaching battery costs of $100/kWh.

 

[Jeff N]

The biggest difference is fast charging speeds. The Bolt and the LEAF can add about 90 miles of range in 30 minutes at a fast charging station, while the Model 3 adds 180 miles of range in 30 minutes. Anyone who travels long distances with any sort of regularlity knows how important this is.

I think Tesla has said 170 miles in 30 minutes for the longer range Model 3 and 130 miles in 30 minutes for the shorter range version which would be most likely to be cross-shopped against a Bolt.

I’ll be happy when a comparable CCS network exists, but nobody seems interested in building one. The company that everyone expects to get the ball rolling is being legally coerced into doing so, and appears to be dragging their feet.

How is VW’s Electrify America “dragging its feet”? Their build-out plan closely mirrors what Tesla did with Supercharging when they started in both scope and installation speed. You should be able to drive the interstate system throughout much of the US on EA’s network in a Bolt EV within 2-3 years.

VW is indeed being “legally coerced” through a 10-year court settlement but they need this system to be built-out and work well as part of their future business plans for competing with Tesla on EV sales.

The CCS network needs redundancy. Installing 1 to 2 plugs in random locations isn't a practical way of going about building out a charging network. It's going to take a little bit more of a concerted effort than partnering with a gas station chain, IMHO.

That’s not what EA is planning to do. They are building highway locations with a minimum of 4 plugs and an average of 5. Locations in busier areas will initially have up to 10 plugs. The locations are being planned as part of a coordinated national system.

VW Reveals Nationwide EV Charging Plans - HybridCars.com

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I think Tesla has said 170 miles in 30 minutes for the longer range Model 3 and 130 miles in 30 minutes for the shorter range version which would be most likely to be cross-shopped against a Bolt.


How is VW’s Electrify America “dragging its feet”? Their build-out plan closely mirrors what Tesla did with Supercharging when they started in both scope and installation speed. You should be able to drive the interstate system throughout much of the US on EA’s network in a Bolt EV within 2-3 years.

VW is indeed being “legally coerced” through a 10-year court settlement but they need this system to be built-out and work well as part of their future business plans for competing with Tesla on EV sales.


That’s not what EA is planning to do. They are building highway locations with a minimum of 4 plugs and an average of 5. Locations in busier areas will initially have up to 10 plugs. The locations are being planned as part of a coordinated national system.

VW Reveals Nationwide EV Charging Plans - HybridCars.com

VW is only going to have between 0-100 stations by the end of 2018, stations that ALL CCS equipped vehicles may use. Tesla had considerably fewer vehicles to serve, and I'm not sure how mirroring start-up Tesla in 2012/13 is a particularly positive attribute for VW in 2018.

My comment about 1-2 plugs wasn't regarding the EA plan, but how gas stations would likely implement charging infrastructure, and how current CCS chargers are typically installed. See Shell's most recent installation.

 

[techmaven]

How is VW’s Electrify America “dragging its feet”? Their build-out plan closely mirrors what Tesla did with Supercharging when they started in both scope and installation speed.

So... when one does a careful read of the "National ZEV Investment Plan" as put forth by VW, several things jump out. They expect to spend $190 million dollars in this initial phase on the high speed highway network. The sites are expected to be 66 miles apart, which is a much higher density than Tesla's initial Supercharger network which was 120-140 miles apart. By mid 2019, they expect 150 stations to be completed. They expect an average of 5 plugs per station. That's $250,000 per plug. Since the average spacing is much closer, they will have much less coverage, leaving a lot of routes uncovered. Now, California will be well blanketed. As you look at the long routes in the U.S., the difference is clear. For example, Tesla currently has over 30+ sites on I-95. This new CCS network is expecting 15+. They expect 5-9 stations on I-70. Tesla has around 20 today. They expect 5-9 on I-90... Tesla is around 24 at the end of 2017. Even in CA take the I-5 for instance. VW expects to get 10+ locations... Tesla is already at 20.

In some sense, it might seem that they will have the equivalent of Tesla's end of 2014 Supercharger network sometime in 2019. The main problem is, of course, that the Tesla Supercharger network in 2019 won't be like the Supercharger network at the end of 2014. At the end of 2014, Tesla had about 37,000 vehicles using the network. By mid 2019, there will be very few 150 kW capable CCS vehicles driving around the U.S. But there will be quite a few slow charging CCS vehicles. Maybe 60,000 slow charging Bolts. In all, maybe 2-3 times the number of vehicles using the network than Tesla in those first two years.

So no... the VW build out plan is not the same in scope. The stations are going to be closer spaced in order to accommodate shorter range CCS vehicles, but that sacrifices overall coverage. Now, the actual driver experience on this network is going to be far more frustrating. The very fact that 2017/2018 Bolts will use this network and clog it up with much longer charge times is going to be a factor. Tesla's average plugs per location has been steadily marching up from the initial 4 to near 8 today. This VW network, as currently planned with the average of 5 per location will be a poor congested experience with the number of slow charging CCS vehicles from all manufacturers.