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

[donkemaen]

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).

A new civic has a 5 year TCO quite close to a base model 3. (shown at about 8min 26 sec in the following vid)

 

[NerdUno]

@techmaven: As for charging stations, it's a replay of the chicken and the egg. My take is that BP, Shell, and Exxon are still waiting for critical mass in the EV vehicle market. Once it arrives, there will be plenty of places to charge every electric car. Until then, Tesla will be in the driver's seat at least in the U.S. market.

Oil giant BP is in talks with automakers to deploy EV chargers at their gas stations

 

[ElecFan]

@techmaven: As for charging stations, it's a replay of the chicken and the egg. My take is that BP, Shell, and Exxon are still waiting for critical mass in the EV vehicle market. Once it arrives, there will be plenty of places to charge every electric car. Until then, Tesla will be in the driver's seat at least in the U.S. market.

Oil giant BP is in talks with automakers to deploy EV chargers at their gas stations

Ofcourse oil companies are waiting. They're going to lose billions and billions because of the EV. They need to be forced in order to get them going. Now that Tesla has shown EV's are growing rapidly, they reluctantly start acting.

It is the same with legacy automakers. For PR purposes they design multiple EV prototypes that never reach the marketplace. Instead they keep selling millions and millions of ice-cars.

If history has taught us anything it is this: those who benefit the most from a situation, will oppose any change to that situation with all the power they have. Don't expect the legacy automakers or oil industry to willingly do anything for EV's unless they are forced to do so.

 

[NerdUno]

Let's hope it's market forces that prompt the changes rather than the government.

 

[Jeff N]

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....

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.

The actual quote is:

Electrify America will build a long distance high speed highway network consisting of charging stations along high-traffic corridors between metropolitan areas, with an initial target of approximately 240 highway sites installed or under development by the end of the first cycle, more than 150 of which are expected to be completed. Sites will be, on average, about 66 miles apart, with no more than 120 miles between stations, meaning many shorter range ZEVs available today will be able to use this network.

I interpret this to mean that highways near urban areas will get a higher density of locations (and probably more plugs than average) and can also be used by ~100-mile range EVs while sites farther away and in rural areas may initially be spaced farther apart in some areas in order to provide broader coverage.

Preparing and installing a site from beginning to end probably takes around a year altogether so I assume most of those 90 locations under development at the end of the first cycle will be completed within about a year into the 2nd cycle (so by the end of 2020). That’s the timeframe in which I expect there to be a fairly comprehensive nationwide coast-to-coast EA route network although, like Tesla Superchargers in 2015, there will be some rural areas like the Dakotas etc. without coverage. Even before the end of 2020 the routes with gaps may be traversable using DC chargers from other networks or overnight L2 destination charging.

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.

As I understand it, the congested Superchargers have mostly been in urban areas and typically included a mix of locals charging for “free”. EA is separately installing additional “community charging” plazas with 50+ kW to cover locals and urban locations are also covered by quite a few 50 kW chargers installed by EVgo, Green Lots, and others.

EA plans to build some highway charging plazas with up to 10 plugs which was at the high-end of Supercharger sites until recently.

 

[voip-ninja]

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.

The market should be what is driving people towards EVs. I am fine with a government incentive to purchase EVs but I think there should be a monetary cap as someone buying a $100,000 automobile probably doesn't need a government handout in order to do so.

Tesla is proving EVs are cool. It is up to other automakers to build cool EVs that the masses can afford, because that is something that Tesla has shown zero interest in doing.

 

[techmaven]

The market should be what is driving people towards EVs. I am fine with a government incentive to purchase EVs but I think there should be a monetary cap as someone buying a $100,000 automobile probably doesn't need a government handout in order to do so.

I disagree. The point is to force early adoption. Those kind of artificial constraints cause all sorts of distortions that ultimately doesn't accomplish the goal. New technology is always going to be expensive and the more well to do are the ones that have to buy in sufficient quantity to increase scale and therefore force down the costs. Furthermore, there is already a built in curve... the incentive is a fixed dollar amount. On a $35,000 car, that's 21%. On a $100,000 car, that's 7.5%.

For example, does it makes sense to make it harder for Lucid to get off the ground? Maybe one day they can be a viable competitor that ships lots of $30-40k vehicles, but they need to sell $100k vehicles initially.

BTW, in other industries, there is no such income cut off. It isn't like we are telling Exxon Mobile that they can't receive their subsidies because they make too much money. And we could structure the subsidies to go directly to companies, like we did with Ford. But a consumer facing subsidy allows the consumers to have a voice in the marketplace and pick the products. I'd hate to give that up and only leave the massive direct corporate subsidies that are negotiated through a political donor system.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

The market should be what is driving people towards EVs. I am fine with a government incentive to purchase EVs but I think there should be a monetary cap as someone buying a $100,000 automobile probably doesn't need a government handout in order to do so.

Tesla is proving EVs are cool. It is up to other automakers to build cool EVs that the masses can afford, because that is something that Tesla has shown zero interest in doing.

The market seems to be that people want EVs, and large manufacturers aren't building what people want. That's the only reason Tesla has gone from nothing to $7+ billion in revenue.

Tesla's certainly shown interest in building maximally affordable EVs, but they aren't able to go straight to that. They need to build successively greater numbers at lower and lower price points, which is what happened with the Roadster, the S/X, and now with the 3. Once the 3 settles in, they'll likely start building the Y and planning for their next model at ~$15k-$25k.

I don't disagree with there being a cap on rebates versus income, but we shouldn't start there.

 

[techmaven]

I interpret this to mean that highways near urban areas will get a higher density of locations (and probably more plugs than average) and can also be used by ~100-mile range EVs while sites farther away and in rural areas may initially be spaced farther apart in some areas in order to provide broader coverage.

There simply aren't going to be enough stations of the long distance network to cover rural areas. You can go look at their chart of highways and expected station counts. Combine that with placing stations much closer together - the *average* is 66 miles apart for the long distance network.

As I understand it, the congested Superchargers have mostly been in urban areas and typically included a mix of locals charging for “free”. EA is separately installing additional “community charging” plazas with 50+ kW to cover locals and urban locations are also covered by quite a few 50 kW chargers installed by EVgo, Green Lots, and others.

EA plans to build some highway charging plazas with up to 10 plugs which was at the high-end of Supercharger sites until recently.

Again, there will be 2x the vehicles of just slow charging Bolts than the equivalent era of the Tesla Supercharger network. Add to it the occasional i3 or Ford Focus Electric and then the actual long distance fast charging vehicles. It's a recipe for frustration. Again, the numbers... average of 5 plugs per location. That means very few 10 plug locations and that also means many 2-4 plug locations.

The best thing for CCS to do is to make CCS v2 incompatible with CCS v1 so that CCS v1 vehicles can't clog up the DC L3 charging network. If they don't do that, they will have to spend roughly 4-6x the cost of the Supercharger network just to support the same ratio of cars to plugs due to the average station spacing. Add to it the slower charging vehicles and the higher number of vehicles overall and VW needs to spend roughly $1.1 billion in order to get the equivalent end of 2014 Supercharger network experience.

 

[voip-ninja]

I disagree. The point is to force early adoption.

The government really shouldn't be in the business of forcing anyone to do anything.

Those kind of artificial constraints cause all sorts of distortions that ultimately doesn't accomplish the goal.

Incentives themselves distort the market.

New technology is always going to be expensive

Wrong. Nissan and others have proven that the technology doesn't have to be substantially more expensive than internal combustion and consumers can be educated that EVs should have much lower long term maintenance costs than competing internal combustion vehicles and then they can make their own choice. If the government wants to sprinkle a few billion dollars around I'd much rather see them doing something actually useful like upgrading the dangerously outdated US power grid.

For example, does it makes sense to make it harder for Lucid to get off the ground? Maybe one day they can be a viable competitor that ships lots of $30-40k vehicles, but they need to sell $100k vehicles initially.

Lucid decided to compete in the high end performance luxury car market which is not my problem or that of any other taxpayer.

BTW, in other industries, there is no such income cut off. It isn't like we are telling Exxon Mobile that they can't receive their subsidies because they make too much money.

A healthy supply of petroleum is a critical component to our economy, you know, functioning.... that's why the government works hand in glove with the companies that deliver that product.

 

[voip-ninja]

The market seems to be that people want EVs, and large manufacturers aren't building what people want. That's the only reason Tesla has gone from nothing to $7+ billion in revenue.

Tesla's certainly shown interest in building maximally affordable EVs, but they aren't able to go straight to that. They need to build successively greater numbers at lower and lower price points, which is what happened with the Roadster, the S/X, and now with the 3. Once the 3 settles in, they'll likely start building the Y and planning for their next model at ~$15k-$25k.

I don't disagree with there being a cap on rebates versus income, but we shouldn't start there.

What you are posting does not jive with reality. Elon Musk has said that Tesla have no plans to build affordable EVs.

It comes down to your definition of affordable, but the low end of the sedan market is $20,000 products and Tesla have zero interest in entering that market even though companies like Nissan and Ford have expressed interest in doing so.

 

[techmaven]

The government really shouldn't be in the business of forcing anyone to do anything.

You might like to say that, but the reality on the ground is very different.

Incentives themselves distort the market.

I should phrased better. The point is for the incentives to distort the market. But there already lots of market distortions. Putting a cap on the vehicle or incomes means falling short of the entire goal of the distortions anyways. And you can't say just remove it... there are already lots of distortions... you are just falling back to the distortions already created, often negotiated by those with a lot more political power and relatively incomprehensible to the average consumer. But that doesn't mean those distortions don't exist.

Wrong. Nissan and others have proven that the technology doesn't have to be substantially more expensive than internal combustion and consumers can be educated that EVs should have much lower long term maintenance costs than competing internal combustion vehicles and then they can make their own choice. If the government wants to sprinkle a few billion dollars around I'd much rather see them doing something actually useful like upgrading the dangerously outdated US power grid.

No, no, no. Nissan and what they did to us is an example of what shouldn't have happened due to any number of people's short sightedness. They put out a crappy product full of terrible compromises. They wasted a lot of government money as a result with lots of unsatisfied consumers.

Lucid decided to compete in the high end performance luxury car market which is not my problem or that of any other taxpayer.

There are realities of start ups and the technology adoption life cycle... crossing the chasm is not easy. Again, government plays a role here. If a particular national government doesn't help, then the distortion created by the help provided by other national governments for their constituent companies gets to run amok. We live in an interconnected, globally competitive landscape.

A healthy supply of petroleum is a critical component to our economy, you know, functioning.... that's why the government works hand in glove with the companies that deliver that product.

Not sure where this is coming from, the petroleum industry is mature with lots of scale, plenty of capital, and lots of political clout. It is too critical to our economy... at an unhealthy level in many respects.

 

[Runt8]

The market should be what is driving people towards EVs.

When the market doesn't take into account externalities, incentives are one of the best methods of leveling the playing field.

 

[voip-ninja]

When the market doesn't take into account externalities, incentives are one of the best methods of leveling the playing field.

Here's a fun fact.

You could eliminate 100% of the "coal rollers" on U.S. roads and the impact on where global temperature is going over the next 50 years wouldn't even register.

I think it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to jump start the U.S. EV market with a financial incentive but I don't think that when it was enacted that Congress thought it would be used as a means for the very wealthy to buy $100K automobiles.

 

[scaesare]

Elon Musk has said that Tesla have no plans to build affordable EVs.

Citation needed.


On edit: Aww heck.. that's such low-hanging fruit I'll go ahead and refute it now.

According to Elon's own words in Tesla's Master Plan:

However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars. This is because the overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution

 

[Jeff N]

There simply aren't going to be enough stations of the long distance network to cover rural areas. You can go look at their chart of highways and expected station counts. Combine that with placing stations much closer together - the *average* is 66 miles apart for the long distance network.

Not true. A recent study found that you can provide good nationwide interstate charging coverage an average of 70 miles apart by using only about 400 locations in the US. I can dig up the link, if necessary.

Electrify America says in their plans that they will have about 200 locations finished at the end of the first cycle with another 90 already in development and presumably completed within another year or so after that. That means ~300 locations by the end of 2020. It also implies good coverage over about 3/4 of the country meaning that areas near Idaho/Wyoming/Montana/Dakotas etc will likely not be covered until later which is similar to what Tesla did in its early years of Supercharger coverage.

Again, there will be 2x the vehicles of just slow charging Bolts than the equivalent era of the Tesla Supercharger network. Add to it the occasional i3 or Ford Focus Electric and then the actual long distance fast charging vehicles. It's a recipe for frustration.

There have been about 20,000 Bolts delivered in the US and probably at least 10,000 of them are in California along with many other shorter-range EVs.

And yet, I just did a ~1,000 mile round-trip from SF to LA during the Thanksgiving timeframe on CA-99 in my Bolt using only CCS and never had to wait for a charger.

I think the reason is that few sub-200 mile range EVs are driven far from home and even most Bolt EVs were purchased primarily for regional driving. Meanwhile, many Tesla drivers selected their cars for the express purpose of taking them on long-distance trips.

This may change over time as more Bolt, 2018 LEAF, and other larger-battery EV drivers gain confidence in taking their cars on longer trips.

Again, the numbers... average of 5 plugs per location. That means very few 10 plug locations and that also means many 2-4 plug locations.

Electrify America has stated that their minimum number of plugs at highway corridor locations will be 4.

The best thing for CCS to do is to make CCS v2 incompatible with CCS v1 so that CCS v1 vehicles can't clog up the DC L3 charging network. If they don't do that, they will have to spend roughly 4-6x the cost of the Supercharger network just to support the same ratio of cars to plugs due to the average station spacing. Add to it the slower charging vehicles and the higher number of vehicles overall and VW needs to spend roughly $1.1 billion in order to get the equivalent end of 2014 Supercharger network experience.

That’s your speculation. Mine is different. We shall see in due time.

You earlier noted that they seem to be planning on spending a surprisingly high amount of money per-plug. I suspect this is because their sites are going to have transformers and charger pads designed and pre-conduited for easy (cheap) expansion of charging stalls as they scale up for more cars over time.

 

[aronth5]

Providing "good interstate coverage" doesn't address many rural areas. They are not necessarily synonymous.

 

[Runt8]

Here's a fun fact.

You could eliminate 100% of the "coal rollers" on U.S. roads and the impact on where global temperature is going over the next 50 years wouldn't even register.

"Coal rollers" are just the most obvious (and absurdly obnoxious) instance of a problem that all ICE vehicles have. ICE vehicles emit greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases cause global climate change, which in turn causes major, hugely expensive, problems. If manufacturers/owners had to pay for damage they were doing to the environment then there would be a free market incentive for developing EV's. Currently they don't have to pay for it, so alternative solutions are required.

And no, I'm not trying to argue that EV's don't emit greenhouse gases.

 

[voip-ninja]

"Coal rollers" are just the most obvious (and absurdly obnoxious) instance of a problem that all ICE vehicles have. ICE vehicles emit greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases cause global climate change, which in turn causes major, hugely expensive, problems. If manufacturers/owners had to pay for damage they were doing to the environment then there would be a free market incentive for developing EV's. Currently they don't have to pay for it, so alternative solutions are required.

And no, I'm not trying to argue that EV's don't emit greenhouse gases.

Should those who use air travel pay a corresponding surcharge for the environmental damage caused? Should it be calculated based on the # of people who were traveled on the polluting aircraft so that, say, a small private jet would have its usage very heavily taxed because the environmental impact benefited very few people?

If you want to go down the road of making people pay for the environmental damage they are causing that is a very long road with an awful lot of turn-offs to explore.

Every person I know who is personally passionate about the environment lives a lifestyle that is absolutely terrible for the environment. Eat meat? Terrible for the environment. Live in a single family home, instead of an efficiency dwelling or doing the really enlightened thing where you time share your dwelling with other families? Terrible. Don't compost all of your trash that is compostable, terrible for the environment. Have a hobby? Most are terrible for the environment.

What's important is to educate people about their choices and still let them make their choices. Trying to tax people into the behavior you want is rarely a good idea.

 

[voip-ninja]

Citation needed.


On edit: Aww heck.. that's such low-hanging fruit I'll go ahead and refute it now.

According to Elon's own words in Tesla's Master Plan:

Okay, I think you've got me. I do remember reading a quote from Musk when he was asked why he wasn't building something like a Honda Accord competitor and he indicated that Tesla was not interested in building slow or boring cars and had no plans to enter that kind of market.

I do see from this 2016 article that Musk insisted in Norway that Tesla's next car after the 3 was going to be a much more affordable car, but we now know that won't be coming soon as the next car they are working on getting released in the 2020 timeframe is the very expensive new generation Roadster.

Elon Musk says Tesla’s next car will be even cheaper than the Model 3