The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[SimplyMe]

For me, I don't drive, but I am on the line about EVs. The battery technology is not there yet for cold weather, and I am waiting for Toyota to release a solid-state battery, which uses less material compared to conventional EV batteries.

Here is an analysis of hybrids vs battery electric cars (BEVs). For me, the plug in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would make the best choice for most individuals who drive a lot, and live in colder climates. Woo, too many acronyms in my sentence for one day.

1. Cold Weather:
   • PHEVs: Since PHEVs have a gasoline engine, they are less affected by cold weather as compared to BEVs. The gasoline engine can help heat the cabin and provide power when electric batteries lose efficiency in cold conditions.
   • BEVs: Cold weather significantly impacts the driving range of BEVs as the battery's efficiency drops due to lower temperatures. Heating the cabin also consumes a considerable amount of electricity, further reducing the range.

As I've pointed out, cold weather affects gas engines, as well. It is also worth pointing out that PHEVs don't have the same battery "management" as BEVs, so the battery isn't warmed by the car in a PHEV, making the cold weather issues worse. Additionally, various PHEV's I've seen do not have an electric heater, but rely on the car's engine. As such, for heat you are strictly using the gas engine; it is something to watch out for. But rather than a PHEV being better in cold weather, in many ways it is "worse" -- it has both the disadvantages of a BEV, but worse since they typically don't have battery "heating," as well as the issues of a gas car in cold weather (lower fuel economy), particularly since in freezing weather the gas engine needs to be on most of the time to stay warm.

1. Travel Distances:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs offer more flexibility when it comes to travel distances as they have a gasoline engine for backup. This makes them suitable for longer trips, especially in areas where charging infrastructure is limited or unreliable.
   • BEVs: Since BEVs rely solely on electricity stored in their batteries, they have a more limited driving range compared to PHEVs or traditional gasoline vehicles. Longer trips require careful planning and access to charging infrastructure along the way.

And I'll largely agree with this. The thing to consider about BEVs is, comparing the fuel tank size based on the equivalent amount of gasoline power they hold, a BEV only holds about 3 gallons worth of power. Granted, they are much more efficient than a pure gasoline operated car; gas car engines are typically between 30-40% efficient while BEVs are around 90% efficient. It is because BEVs are so efficient and that their "tank" is so small, that higher energy use (such as in cold weather) are so much more noticeable.

OTOH, this is one of the issues of PHEVs, is they lose some efficiency because of the extra weight of carrying both a relatively large battery and a gasoline engine.

1. Charging:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs can be charged from an external source, but they also have a gasoline engine for backup. This means that while they can be charged faster than BEVs using conventional charging methods, they are not as dependent on charging infrastructure as BEVs.
   • BEVs: BEVs need to be charged from an external source before use, and their charging time depends on the type of charger used. Fast-charging options are available but not as widespread or accessible as conventional charging stations.

I find this a weak point. The issue is, the whole use case for the PHEV, the reason for having the electric power train, is to use locally. As such, charging isn't that major a point since you will largely only ever charge a PHEV at home -- and in the local area you'll do the same with your BEV. Unfortunately, similar to a BEV, the big advantage to a BEV or PHEV is the ability to charge at home overnight each day.

The advantage of the PHEV is that they will use a gasoline engine when traveling greater distances and there are far more gas stations than charging stations, as well as the greater range of the gasoline engine.

1. Cost:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs generally have a higher upfront cost compared to traditional gasoline vehicles due to their advanced technology and added battery system. However, they may offer tax incentives and lower operating costs since they can run on electricity for shorter distances. PHEVS are also cheaper to buy compared to pure electric vehicles (BEVS)
   • BEVs: BEVs have a higher upfront cost compared to both PHEVs and traditional gasoline vehicles due to their advanced technology and battery system. However, they offer lower operating costs as electricity is generally less expensive than gasoline in the long run.

And, yes, PHEVs suffer from higher cost, just like a BEV. And while the PHEV saves some of the cost because of the smaller battery, it also has to pay for the gasoline drivetrain, an electrical drivetrain, as well as some type of transmission that can combine the two so that either can power the wheels. While PHEVs may be somewhat cheaper than a BEV, they also often are not -- and typically the lower cost comes from "cost savings" such as underpowered electric motors (under 100 HP) making the car feel a bit anemic when in electric mode, to include often needing to go to gas mode when traveling at high speeds (possibly 70 or over) and stripping things like an electric heater, which means it doesn't really work on electric in winter (at least if you want any heat).

PHEVs can be great for some people, particularly if they frequently have to travel a distance greater than a BEV would take them. At the same time, they also have some disadvantages, particularly in having to always carry the two powertrains. Though I can clearly see where some on this forum might like a PHEV instead of a BEV, other than they'd object to paying several thousand extra over the price of a gas car.

 

[AlexB23]

As I've pointed out, cold weather affects gas engines, as well. It is also worth pointing out that PHEVs don't have the same battery "management" as BEVs, so the battery isn't warmed by the car in a PHEV, making the cold weather issues worse. Additionally, various PHEV's I've seen do not have an electric heater, but rely on the car's engine. As such, for heat you are strictly using the gas engine; it is something to watch out for. But rather than a PHEV being better in cold weather, in many ways it is "worse" -- it has both the disadvantages of a BEV, but worse since they typically don't have battery "heating," as well as the issues of a gas car in cold weather (lower fuel economy), particularly since in freezing weather the gas engine needs to be on most of the time to stay warm.



And I'll largely agree with this. The thing to consider about BEVs is, comparing the fuel tank size based on the equivalent amount of gasoline power they hold, a BEV only holds about 3 gallons worth of power. Granted, they are much more efficient than a pure gasoline operated car; gas car engines are typically between 30-40% efficient while BEVs are around 90% efficient. It is because BEVs are so efficient and that their "tank" is so small, that higher energy use (such as in cold weather) are so much more noticeable.

OTOH, this is one of the issues of PHEVs, is they lose some efficiency because of the extra weight of carrying both a relatively large battery and a gasoline engine.



I find this a weak point. The issue is, the whole use case for the PHEV, the reason for having the electric power train, is to use locally. As such, charging isn't that major a point since you will largely only ever charge a PHEV at home -- and in the local area you'll do the same with your BEV. Unfortunately, similar to a BEV, the big advantage to a BEV or PHEV is the ability to charge at home overnight each day.

The advantage of the PHEV is that they will use a gasoline engine when traveling greater distances and there are far more gas stations than charging stations, as well as the greater range of the gasoline engine.



And, yes, PHEVs suffer from higher cost, just like a BEV. And while the PHEV saves some of the cost because of the smaller battery, it also has to pay for the gasoline drivetrain, an electrical drivetrain, as well as some type of transmission that can combine the two so that either can power the wheels. While PHEVs may be somewhat cheaper than a BEV, they also often are not -- and typically the lower cost comes from "cost savings" such as underpowered electric motors (under 100 HP) making the car feel a bit anemic when in electric mode, to include often needing to go to gas mode when traveling at high speeds (possibly 70 or over) and stripping things like an electric heater, which means it doesn't really work on electric in winter (at least if you want any heat).

PHEVs can be great for some people, particularly if they frequently have to travel a distance greater than a BEV would take them. At the same time, they also have some disadvantages, particularly in having to always carry the two powertrains. Though I can clearly see where some on this forum might like a PHEV instead of a BEV, other than they'd object to paying several thousand extra over the price of a gas car.

Yeah, my parents would be the ones who would use PHEVs, as we go on road trips a lot. They do not own PHEVs now, but seem like the individuals to get a PHEV. I get it that PHEVS can the worst of both worlds, but for many road trip folks, it is the best of both worlds. My manager at my job has a Volvo PHEV, and he rarely uses the gas engine during the spring and fall, as his commutes are <20 miles. During the winter, he uses more gas, to run the heat, same with the summer to run the A/C. But, he gets high fuel economy, sometimes 80+ MPG for shorter distances. He would get a BEV, but he goes on road trips as well, and it is a cold climate in my state.

So, for people on the fence, it is best that they consult a car dealer, or an independent service worker that can weigh the benefits based upon one's driving habits.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Three successes

 

[JustOneWay]

View attachment 344914

Three successes

Anybody who actually believes that the man in the White House can fix everything everywhere is nothing more than out of touch with reality, and has an agenda.

Here are the real successes, and not ones in the meme which are mostly controlled by private individuals, companies and corporations.

The Biden-Harris Record | The White House

After inheriting a raging pandemic, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris worked fast to jump start a historic recovery, heal the soul of America, and invest in a country that leaves no one behind.

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[probinson]

Could be. Of course, the buyers of Telluride's also have the problem, as Kia dealers also put ridiculous markups on that car, and they also sell for $30,000 (or even less) today. Again, the popular cars of 2022 all had ridiculous markups and many have lost a lot of value today -- part of why so many in the top 10 of value loss are not EVs. It helps when you buy something like a K5 that wasn't one of the highly sought after models -- they don't have the markups of the popular vehicles.

Except even without the markups, the EV6's have lost nearly half of their value. And it's not alone. EVs in general depreciate much more quickly than ICE vehicles.

Yes, that seemed to be something they did, likely to differentiate it from its "sister" the Ioniq 5.

Unfortunately, no trim of the EV6 has a panoramic moonroof like my K5, and I'd have to settle for a sunroof on either the GT-Line or GT to get anything close.

IMHO, the Ioniq 5 is an ugly vehicle that I would never consider purchasing.

I'm not trying to claim it is just a bit of plastic trim on the K5 -- I agree, it is an entire change of the front of the car -- almost everything below the hood. That isn't true of the EV6, it is literally a piece of trim, one that you likely don't even notice when driving by an EV6, that is below the bumper.

Again, the trim line is quite a bit different on the EV6. It also has sportier wheels.

Wind

GT-Line

The GT-Line just looks sportier overall. It has different lines. That may not be important to some people, but it is a significant difference in appearance.

To be clear, I did not call you stupid.

To be clear, you said....

"Which is a rather stupid exercise for you to do."​

If you are going that route, you've basically called me "stupid" multiple times, telling me how wrong I was about things (that I was not actually wrong about).

You've actually been wrong about a lot of things. But I don't think you're stupid, nor have I ever said or insinuated that you were.

Do you read what I write,

Yes.

or do you just assume that I'm automatically wrong?

I assume that you'll spin everything into a positive for EVs while ignoring all of their limitations, because that's what you've done throughout the entire conversation.

My point was that whether you take 0% financing and save $7500 on interest or whether you take the $7500 off the price of the car, you are getting roughly $7500 off.

That's some interesting math.

Again, the ONLY way you are saving money is if you pay cash for the vehicle.

Also, 0% financial offers exist on all kinds of cars.

Granted, in both cases it is likely more than $7,500; you've made the comment about how you'd save more than $7500 on interest and, in most states, you'll save the cost of sales tax since they are taking off the $7500 off the price of the car. Or are you thinking that Kia isn't paying the $7500 to the finance company, instead of you, so they will give you the 0% interest? Again, both ways you are saving the $7500 off the price of the car, the only difference is whether it is off the sales price or off the interest charged -- which is why I stated the argument was pointless.

You aren't saving SQUAT unless you're paying of the car with cash. A quick Google shows that roughly 30% of people buy cars with cash, which actually surprised me a bit until I read further and found that roughly only 22% of people in the US can even afford a new car. So the percentage of Americans buying new cars with cash is pretty small.

My point is, you're trying to use these incentives to say EVs are less expensive than they actually are. But incentives exist on all vehicles.

The bottom line is that an EV6 GT-Line is ~$60k.

That's nice. Yes, you don't get any equity. Instead, you can let the car go or pay the residual value, likely getting a loan, to purchase the car.

Which is almost always going to cost you more than if you had just purchased it.

Leases are mostly for people who can't afford to purchase a new whiz-bang car, so they just resolve themselves to having a car payment for the rest of their lives in exchange for the latest vehicle. When I was younger and dumber I played that game. You'll lose every time.

The point here was the person had $15,000 taken off the price of the car (what the lease company paid) and so was making extremely low payments (something like $300/month) for the EV6. And, if the car has lost half its value (as you are talking about with EVs, even though it has happened with popular gasoline cars, as well), then he can still buy a new car without the worry of being "upside down" on a loan for a car he "purchased."

There is no question that EVs are depreciating at much faster rates than their ICE counterparts.

I don't know your friend's specific set of circumstances. There are incentives that can make a lease beneficial. But suffice to say that you will almost never come out ahead if you choose to lease a vehicle.

I'm not saying it is all a conspiracy, I'm stating that -- much like you did when we first started talking -- you exaggerated the claims about EVs.

And you're downplaying them.

The differences are far less than what is claimed about them.

They are not. They are significant. Pretending like the differences aren't significant won't make them any better nor convince people to convert.

Prices are not twice as much, they've gotten to about $10K

That depends on what you want, and how much range you're willing to pay for. Sure, if you take the bargain basement, shortest range possible model, you might "only" pay $10k more.

Also, I have no idea why you're pretending like $10k isn't a significant amount of money.

-- and Tesla's Model Y is likely pretty close to equivalent pricing to a gas SUV, even before you take the tax credit (which can be applied at purchase) off the Model Y.

I also think the Model Y is pretty ugly. Personally, I'd go for a Model 3 if I were going to buy a Tesla.

And while the Model Y may start at $39k (after tax incentive), it can balloon up to well over $50k, depending on what options you choose and how far you'd like to be able to drive before you recharge.

What I'm saying is, despite the issues you claim, EVs are great cars now and work for a lot of Americans.

And I suspect that most of the Americans have already purchased their EVs. Some analysts believe that this is the year we'll see the first year-over-year decline in EV sales.

In 2024, though, the question is who, exactly, is left to buy? Elon Musk fanboys and other tech trendsetters have all basically bought their EVs, and now major automakers have to contend with customers who don’t really care about the cars. “Early adopters have come and gone after the product has been out there for well over a decade. You feel like you’ve tapped them out,” says Jenkins.​

​

A Once Unthinkable Question: Could Electric-Vehicle Sales Decline in 2024?

Growth has long been a given. But a dismal stretch for the industry has at least a few analysts wondering.

nymag.com

​

I've pointed out they are perfect for most any family as a second car.

Actually, I pointed that out in one of my very first posts. But after talking with you and researching further, now I'm second-guessing whether that is actually true or not. Kia just unveiled their new K4 last Wednesday which will be in dealerships in the fall. That may be my next second car.

For many people, but not you, they are even great as a primary vehicle.

Sure. And those people have probably already bought them. So to repeat the article above, "who, exactly, is left to buy?"

They are cheaper to run on a day to day basis,

Well, that largely depends on whether you can charge at home. If you have to rely on public chargers that are charging $0.30-$0.48 per kWh, it might actually be cheaper to put gas in a car.

And actually...

According to RepairPal, the average Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That is higher in comparison to an average of $652 per year for all car models sold in the United States. Depending on which services your Tesla needs, you may end up spending much more than the average car owner on yearly maintenance needs.​

​

It's Not A Total Recall: Volvo Will Extend Warranty To Correct Stalling Issues - Jalopnik

Parents might tell their kids monsters don't exist, but serial killers sure do. These real-life monsters prey on us all, and plenty of serial killers have been caught through the years. Here's how several notorious serial killers were finally caught.

jalopnik.com

​

there is little maintenance on them (largely tires, windshield wipers, and a 12-volt battery every few years).

There's pretty little maintenance on most new cars, EV or not.

Also, don't forget that tires on an EV wear roughly 20% faster than on an ICE vehicle. Tires are pretty expensive to replace.

There is no oil or most other fluids

Yes, an oil change every 6,000 miles or so is required on ICE vehicles. Many dealerships do it for free while you wait and give you free coffee and donuts.

-- there is coolant but that is maybe every decade that it needs to be change, so not something most will every have to do.

Coolant in most new ICE vehicles needs to be changed anywhere from every 30k to 60k miles. Not exactly a hefty imposition.

Brakes, because of regenerative braking, last far longer (maybe "forever" for many drivers).

I would argue that brake life depends mostly on the driver. Many people hit their brakes when they don't need to. They'll do that whether they're driving an EV or an ICE vehicle. My brakes last much longer than average because I actually know how to drive and when (and more importantly, when not to) hit the brakes.

On top of that, they tend to be "faster" (instant torque) and smoother, no noxious emissions, etc. They aren't perfect but they are very good, though they do require a bit of "re-training" to understand the differences.

Before we began this discussion, I was on the fence about my next second car being an EV. But this discussion has all but convinced me that unless the battery tech and charging infrastructure improves drastically over the next few years, they're just not ready for mass adoption for multiple reasons. That new K4 looks pretty sweet and it has all the tech and none of the limitations of the EVs.

Denying or downplaying the issues won't make them go away, nor will it convince people to convert.

 

[SimplyMe]

Except even without the markups, the EV6's have lost nearly half of their value. And it's not alone. EVs in general depreciate much more quickly than ICE vehicles.

Yes, they've depreciated over the last 5 years (when depreciation studies tend to be done) because the MSRP fell substantially between 2019 and 2023. Look at the models available, and what their prices were, in 2019 and 2023 -- which is largely Teslas (which had dramatic price drops in 2022 and 2023) and the Chevy Bolt, which also had a huge price drop.

I'd also point out the segment where the most depreciation occurs, even more than simply "EVs" is Luxury cars. It's interesting, if you look at the list of cars that depreciated the most, there are few (or no) EVs and all are luxury cars. And, as I've pointed out with the EV6, it is largely a "luxury car" based on the features it has, even though, as a Kia, it is not a luxury vehicle.

Unfortunately, no trim of the EV6 has a panoramic moonroof like my K5, and I'd have to settle for a sunroof on either the GT-Line or GT to get anything close.

IMHO, the Ioniq 5 is an ugly vehicle that I would never consider purchasing.



Again, the trim line is quite a bit different on the EV6. It also has sportier wheels.

Wind
View attachment 345043View attachment 345046

GT-Line
View attachment 345044View attachment 345045

The GT-Line just looks sportier overall. It has different lines. That may not be important to some people, but it is a significant difference in appearance.

Actually, the lines are exactly the same. If you look at the various metal panels, all the lines are exactly the same. As I stated, the plastic under the bumpers have changed and, as you pointed out, you get different tires. Again, if you saw them driving by you on the road you would have a hard time telling the difference.

You've made your preferences clear and that is fine -- but they are just that, your preferences.

To be clear, you said....

"Which is a rather stupid exercise for you to do."​

Exactly, the exercise was stupid.

You've actually been wrong about a lot of things. But I don't think you're stupid, nor have I ever said or insinuated that you were.



Yes.



I assume that you'll spin everything into a positive for EVs while ignoring all of their limitations, because that's what you've done throughout the entire conversation.

You've spun everything as a negative for EVs -- I've merely tried to provide an alternate perspective.

That's some interesting math.

Again, the ONLY way you are saving money is if you pay cash for the vehicle.

Also, 0% financial offers exist on all kinds of cars.


You aren't saving SQUAT unless you're paying of the car with cash. A quick Google shows that roughly 30% of people buy cars with cash, which actually surprised me a bit until I read further and found that roughly only 22% of people in the US can even afford a new car. So the percentage of Americans buying new cars with cash is pretty small.

My point is, you're trying to use these incentives to say EVs are less expensive than they actually are. But incentives exist on all vehicles.

The bottom line is that an EV6 GT-Line is ~$60k.

Great, since they exist on all cars, what are the incentives on the Sorento (which probably is about as close a car Kia makes to the EV6)? Anything over $1,000? Any 0% financing offers?

Again, current car loan rates are 6% -- do you think banks offer 0% on the EV6 just because Kia asked them nicely? No, what they are doing is taking the $7500 incentive offered on the EV6 and paying it to the finance company, since the finance company won't make any money on the loan. Again, you are saving the $7500 whether you choose to get in cash or have Kia pay it to the finance company so you can get a 0% loan. And, it was you who stated that you'd save more money having it applied to the loan. Either way, the person has "saved" over $7500 off the price of the car, either through lower sales tax (because it was $7500 less) or through a lack on interest payments. Yes, the person taking so they don't have to make interest payments don't get the discount on the car, but it still lowers what they pay by over $7500.

And you can argue whether the person is stupid for getting a loan on a car but that has nothing to do with getting money off of what they pay for the car. Again, I'll be interested to see what the prices are for the 2025 EV6.

Which is almost always going to cost you more than if you had just purchased it.

Leases are mostly for people who can't afford to purchase a new whiz-bang car, so they just resolve themselves to having a car payment for the rest of their lives in exchange for the latest vehicle. When I was younger and dumber I played that game. You'll lose every time.

I could care less about debating leases, not sure how it contributes anything to this topic. Though here is an interesting thing I just found -- if we compare the lease offers between the Sorento and the EV6, Kia offers the AWD version of both cars (the Wind trim, big battery, for the EV6) for $369. Yes, you can argue that people shouldn't lease cars but it does show that Kia is attempting to sell them both for close to the same price, after incentives, despite the difference in MSRP.

There is no question that EVs are depreciating at much faster rates than their ICE counterparts.

If you say so, though you've not shown it.

I don't know your friend's specific set of circumstances. There are incentives that can make a lease beneficial. But suffice to say that you will almost never come out ahead if you choose to lease a vehicle.



And you're downplaying them.



They are not. They are significant. Pretending like the differences aren't significant won't make them any better nor convince people to convert.

There are significant differences, both ways. You are just exaggerating all the things you don't like and basically ignoring the things you do. I've admitted that there are serious issues for people with EVs

That depends on what you want, and how much range you're willing to pay for. Sure, if you take the bargain basement, shortest range possible model, you might "only" pay $10k more.

Also, I have no idea why you're pretending like $10k isn't a significant amount of money.

By this logic, you should have bought the base K5, even if you like the styling of the GT-Line. After all, the rest you paid (despite the look you like better and the extra features) are a significant amount that you are paying extra for. While you keep trying to handwave it away, there is a significant amount of features on the EV6 that aren't available, at all, on your K5, likely 10K worth, and while they may not be worth it to you, they are worth it to other people who aren't you.

I also think the Model Y is pretty ugly. Personally, I'd go for a Model 3 if I were going to buy a Tesla.

And while the Model Y may start at $39k (after tax incentive), it can balloon up to well over $50k, depending on what options you choose and how far you'd like to be able to drive before you recharge.

That's nice. Again, the Sorento it seems (without looking again) costs around $32K for the base model and goes up to almost $50K for the top trim. I also suspect if there were a GT-Line trim of the Sorento, particularly a version that could do 0-60 in under 5 seconds (not to mention the 3.5 sec. 0-60 of the Model Y that is over $50K), that you'd find it worth it for the Sorento to have the over $50K price tag (but with no $7500 off that the Tesla gets).

And I suspect that most of the Americans have already purchased their EVs. Some analysts believe that this is the year we'll see the first year-over-year decline in EV sales.

In 2024, though, the question is who, exactly, is left to buy? Elon Musk fanboys and other tech trendsetters have all basically bought their EVs, and now major automakers have to contend with customers who don’t really care about the cars. “Early adopters have come and gone after the product has been out there for well over a decade. You feel like you’ve tapped them out,” says Jenkins.​

​

A Once Unthinkable Question: Could Electric-Vehicle Sales Decline in 2024?

Growth has long been a given. But a dismal stretch for the industry has at least a few analysts wondering.

nymag.com

​

Actually, I pointed that out in one of my very first posts. But after talking with you and researching further, now I'm second-guessing whether that is actually true or not. Kia just unveiled their new K4 last Wednesday which will be in dealerships in the fall. That may be my next second car.



Sure. And those people have probably already bought them. So to repeat the article above, "who, exactly, is left to buy?"



Well, that largely depends on whether you can charge at home. If you have to rely on public chargers that are charging $0.30-$0.48 per kWh, it might actually be cheaper to put gas in a car.

Which I admitted in a previous post. Yes, you need to have a way to charge the car and, if you do, it is a significant cost and monetary savings for most people to not have to buy gas.

And actually...

According to RepairPal, the average Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That is higher in comparison to an average of $652 per year for all car models sold in the United States. Depending on which services your Tesla needs, you may end up spending much more than the average car owner on yearly maintenance needs.​

​

It's Not A Total Recall: Volvo Will Extend Warranty To Correct Stalling Issues - Jalopnik

Parents might tell their kids monsters don't exist, but serial killers sure do. These real-life monsters prey on us all, and plenty of serial killers have been caught through the years. Here's how several notorious serial killers were finally caught.

jalopnik.com

​

Oh, please tell me, what is this mysterious $832 in maintenance per year? It's interesting that that "cost" is not linked to any Tesla Model, just to "Tesla" in your link. As you go down and look at the maintenance on that page, it mentions things you should "check" (12-volt battery, seat belts, but no required replacements or things you have to have done to the car that cost money. In fact, when it comes to the heading of "How Much Maintenance Does a Tesla Need?," it states, "Generally speaking, your Tesla will only need maintenance every 2-3 years for most services based on recommendations from the automaker." So what is this $832 in annual maintenance.

Well, since your article mentions they got the number from RepairPal, let's look at that page -- hmm, again for a "Tesla" with no model and a cost of $832 but with nothing that states what that is for. If we go down to the bottom and look at the various models, and go to the page for the Model 3, it states, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla 3 to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost." Odd, a seven year old car and they have no data?

Well maybe it is an anomaly, so let us look at the Tesla Model Y. What, again, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla Y to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost." Hmm, what about the Model X; weird, again it is, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla Y to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost."

Okay, let's look at the Model S, after all, it is the oldest car. Well, here is states, "The annual maintenance cost of a Tesla S is $1,047. Repair and maintenance costs vary depending on age, mileage, location and shop." Okay, but what is that maintenance. If I go down the page, it just talks about Tesla S Repairs and Prices, nothing about maintenance. And, if I look up, it says "$1047 Annual Repair Cost," odd that that is the same amount of the maintenance cost. In fact, for the Model S, they seem to have put the Repair Cost (realizing the oldest Model S cars are over a decade old) and are claiming that is the maintenance cost, which explains while all we see for costs are repair costs.

This would also explain why all the other cars, despite being available for years, they don't have "enough data" -- because the fact they have no maintenance cost, so there is no data.

There's pretty little maintenance on most new cars, EV or not.

Also, don't forget that tires on an EV wear roughly 20% faster than on an ICE vehicle. Tires are pretty expensive to replace.



Yes, an oil change every 6,000 miles or so is required on ICE vehicles. Many dealerships do it for free while you wait and give you free coffee and donuts.

Oil changes have a cost, just that in some cases the dealer builds them into the price of the vehicle, as they've apparently done for you.

Coolant in most new ICE vehicles needs to be changed anywhere from every 30k to 60k miles. Not exactly a hefty imposition.

Still, at least twice, if not four times as often, as in an EV. Of course, that makes sense because the temperatures in an EV are far lower than a gasoline car.

I would argue that brake life depends mostly on the driver. Many people hit their brakes when they don't need to. They'll do that whether they're driving an EV or an ICE vehicle. My brakes last much longer than average because I actually know how to drive and when (and more importantly, when not to) hit the brakes.

Not really true. Again, if you properly drive an EV you likely will never have to change the brakes. In fact, the issue some EV owners have had -- and which the EV6 has a method to try and prevent from happening -- is where they've had to replace the brakes at 100,000 or so miles, not because of use, but because they rusted out because they weren't used. If a person is a complete idiot in most EVs, they might have to repair their brakes about the same time a normal driver might replace brakes on an ICE car; even with the idiot driving, most EVs will still attempt to do most of the stopping with regenerative braking, resorting to adding physical brakes only if the extra stopping power is required.

Before we began this discussion, I was on the fence about my next second car being an EV. But this discussion has all but convinced me that unless the battery tech and charging infrastructure improves drastically over the next few years, they're just not ready for mass adoption for multiple reasons. That new K4 looks pretty sweet and it has all the tech and none of the limitations of the EVs.

Denying or downplaying the issues won't make them go away, nor will it convince people to convert.

Again, you've made it clear you didn't have much interest in an EV, so it isn't surprising. As for the K4, it is a refreshed Forte (much as the K5 is a refreshed Optima); and as such it likely won't even have all the tech of the K5, much less the EV6.

 

[probinson]

Yes, they've depreciated over the last 5 years (when depreciation studies tend to be done)

Again, the reasons really don't matter to people who are now upside down on their loans.

I'd also point out the segment where the most depreciation occurs, even more than simply "EVs" is Luxury cars.

True enough. The more you pay for your car, the quicker it will depreciate. Which would explain why EVs depreciate so quickly, since they are generally far more expensive than any ICE equivalent.

It's interesting, if you look at the list of cars that depreciated the most, there are few (or no) EVs and all are luxury cars. And, as I've pointed out with the EV6, it is largely a "luxury car" based on the features it has, even though, as a Kia, it is not a luxury vehicle.

I know you think that. But I don't know why.

All of this fancy tech you keep saying is so expensive will be available this year on the K5 and the K4. We'll see what the MSRP is on those.

Actually, the lines are exactly the same. If you look at the various metal panels, all the lines are exactly the same. As I stated, the plastic under the bumpers have changed and, as you pointed out, you get different tires. Again, if you saw them driving by you on the road you would have a hard time telling the difference.

I can spot a GT-Line at 20 paces. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the differences. They're pretty obvious.

You've made your preferences clear and that is fine -- but they are just that, your preferences.

Agreed. But you started by telling me I'd be choosing the Wind. I would not. I've tried to explain why.

Exactly, the exercise was stupid.

Right. I'm not stupid. Just the things I do. Nice designation.

You've spun everything as a negative for EVs -- I've merely tried to provide an alternate perspective.

Yes, by severely downplaying the very real issues with EVs.

Great, since they exist on all cars, what are the incentives on the Sorento (which probably is about as close a car Kia makes to the EV6)? Anything over $1,000? Any 0% financing offers?

I have no idea. I'm not in the market for any car right now.

But since you asked, I looked. There is currently a 0.9% financing offer on the Sorento for 48 months. Granted, 0.9% isn't 0%, but it's pretty darn close. And it's not even an EV!

Again, current car loan rates are 6% -- do you think banks offer 0% on the EV6 just because Kia asked them nicely? No, what they are doing is taking the $7500 incentive offered on the EV6 and paying it to the finance company, since the finance company won't make any money on the loan. Again, you are saving the $7500 whether you choose to get in cash or have Kia pay it to the finance company so you can get a 0% loan. And, it was you who stated that you'd save more money having it applied to the loan. Either way, the person has "saved" over $7500 off the price of the car, either through lower sales tax (because it was $7500 less) or through a lack on interest payments. Yes, the person taking so they don't have to make interest payments don't get the discount on the car, but it still lowers what they pay by over $7500.

Nifty theory.

So how do you explain the 0.9% financing offer that they currently have on the Sorento? There is no $7,500 cash incentive on that car to give to the finance company. The best they'll do is $750 customer loyalty cash. If your theory is correct, then why is Kia Finance willing to offer such a low interest rate on those vehicles?

And you can argue whether the person is stupid for getting a loan on a car but that has nothing to do with getting money off of what they pay for the car. Again, I'll be interested to see what the prices are for the 2025 EV6.

I could care less about debating leases, not sure how it contributes anything to this topic.

Neither am I. But you brought it up.

Though here is an interesting thing I just found -- if we compare the lease offers between the Sorento and the EV6, Kia offers the AWD version of both cars (the Wind trim, big battery, for the EV6) for $369. Yes, you can argue that people shouldn't lease cars but it does show that Kia is attempting to sell them both for close to the same price, after incentives, despite the difference in MSRP.

C'mon. The terms they advertise aren't even the same. The EV6 lease requires $4,499 at signing and the Sorento requires $3,499 at signing. Do you just look at the big number they advertise and assume everything else is equal?

If you say so, though you've not shown it.

Sure I have. You've even admitted it. It's Hertz's fault. Now is a great time to buy a used EV because they have depreciated so much in such a short period of time. You can buy decent used EVs for between $25k and $30k right now on vehicles that are twice that new.

There are significant differences, both ways. You are just exaggerating all the things you don't like

I'm really not. I'm telling you that there are basically no inconveniences with my gas car. It's become such a transparent part of my life that I don't even think about it. Except every 6 months or so when I go get my oil changed and tires rotated. Oh hey, do you still get your tires rotated on an EV? I hope so, especially since tires wear roughly 20% faster on an EV. I bet that takes time. Probably the same amount of time as my oil change and tire rotation combined, since changing oil literally takes just a few minutes.

and basically ignoring the things you do. I've admitted that there are serious issues for people with EVs

Really? I haven't seen you identify any issues with EVs. Could you summarize what you believe are the "serious issues for people with EVs"?

By this logic, you should have bought the base K5, even if you like the styling of the GT-Line.

What "logic" are you referring to? The only way you can contend that EVs are "only" $10k more is if you tell people to buy the lowest trim level. The price of EVs quickly jumps for something as simple as a longer range battery.

After all, the rest you paid (despite the look you like better and the extra features) are a significant amount that you are paying extra for.

Not nearly as significant as with EV trim differences.

While you keep trying to handwave it away, there is a significant amount of features on the EV6 that aren't available, at all, on your K5, likely 10K worth, and while they may not be worth it to you, they are worth it to other people who aren't you.

We'll see when the 2025 K5 line hits the market just how much tech isn't available, and get an idea what it actually costs.

That's nice. Again, the Sorento it seems (without looking again) costs around $32K for the base model and goes up to almost $50K for the top trim. I also suspect if there were a GT-Line trim of the Sorento, particularly a version that could do 0-60 in under 5 seconds (not to mention the 3.5 sec. 0-60 of the Model Y that is over $50K), that you'd find it worth it for the Sorento to have the over $50K price tag (but with no $7500 off that the Tesla gets).

I don't really care about 0-60 second times. They're great for marketing, but that's about tit.

Which I admitted in a previous post. Yes, you need to have a way to charge the car and, if you do, it is a significant cost and monetary savings for most people to not have to buy gas.

Of course, you have to take into account the higher price you paid for the car. In many cases, it may take you more than a decade to break even.

​

Take the lovely Kia EV6, for instance. This stylish and spacious hatchback is a great choice for folks that want to downsize from a truck and save a big chunk of change in the process. A long-range, Wind-trim, rear-drive EV6 offers 310 miles of range and stickers at 134 miles per gallon equivalent city, 101 mpge highway and 117 mpge combined. Calculating the EV6's efficiency like we did with the Lightning above reveals that the electricity needed to run this vehicle for 15,000 miles should cost around $605 per year, which is very close to the EPA's estimate of $550.​

​

Comparing our miserly EV6 to a midrange Honda Accord Sport sedan, which is far more efficient than an F-150, is similarly revealing. With a 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, a continuously variable transmission and a combined fuel economy rating of 33 mpg, you'd be spending about $1,928 on fuel to drive this Honda for 15,000 miles... nearly 3.2 times more than the Kia. However, including destination and delivery, the Accord is far cheaper at a totally reasonable $31,085 compared to the EV6's $48,255 price tag. It's a difference of $17,170, which is slightly less than the delta between the standard F-150 and the Lightning. ​

​

Dividing that figure by $1,323, the annual price difference of running the Accord compared to the Kia, works out to a payback period of nearly 13 years. In this case, it may make more sense to keep on driving the Accord even if you nearly faint every time you fill the tank.​

​

Don't Swap Your Gas-Guzzler for an Electric Vehicle to Avoid High Fuel Prices

EVs make a lot of sense, especially as fuel prices climb, but avoid knee-jerk impulses to buy an electric car just to save money at the pump.

www.cnet.com

​

Of course, every situation is different. But to pretend like just because you're not putting gas in your car you're "saving" money while ignoring the substantially higher price tag you initially paid is disingenuous at best.

Oh, please tell me, what is this mysterious $832 in maintenance per year? It's interesting that that "cost" is not linked to any Tesla Model, just to "Tesla" in your link. As you go down and look at the maintenance on that page, it mentions things you should "check" (12-volt battery, seat belts, but no required replacements or things you have to have done to the car that cost money. In fact, when it comes to the heading of "How Much Maintenance Does a Tesla Need?," it states, "Generally speaking, your Tesla will only need maintenance every 2-3 years for most services based on recommendations from the automaker." So what is this $832 in annual maintenance.

Well, since your article mentions they got the number from RepairPal, let's look at that page -- hmm, again for a "Tesla" with no model and a cost of $832 but with nothing that states what that is for. If we go down to the bottom and look at the various models, and go to the page for the Model 3, it states, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla 3 to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost." Odd, a seven year old car and they have no data?

Well maybe it is an anomaly, so let us look at the Tesla Model Y. What, again, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla Y to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost." Hmm, what about the Model X; weird, again it is, "We don’t currently have enough data on the Tesla Y to give you an accurate yearly maintenance cost."

Okay, let's look at the Model S, after all, it is the oldest car. Well, here is states, "The annual maintenance cost of a Tesla S is $1,047. Repair and maintenance costs vary depending on age, mileage, location and shop." Okay, but what is that maintenance. If I go down the page, it just talks about Tesla S Repairs and Prices, nothing about maintenance. And, if I look up, it says "$1047 Annual Repair Cost," odd that that is the same amount of the maintenance cost. In fact, for the Model S, they seem to have put the Repair Cost (realizing the oldest Model S cars are over a decade old) and are claiming that is the maintenance cost, which explains while all we see for costs are repair costs.

This would also explain why all the other cars, despite being available for years, they don't have "enough data" -- because the fact they have no maintenance cost, so there is no data.

Well, you've convinced me. EVs are completely free.

Oil changes have a cost, just that in some cases the dealer builds them into the price of the vehicle, as they've apparently done for you.

Ot they eat the cost. An incentive, if you will.

Dealers have to compete for business by differentiating themselves with excellent service after the sale. I could have paid $31k for my K5 at any Kia dealer. Some places would have included maintenance after the sale, others wouldn't. They didn't up the price of the vehicle. They just offer free maintenance as an incentive to buy from them instead of their competitors.

Still, at least twice, if not four times as often, as in an EV.

Oh wow. I might have to change my coolant 2-4 times over my entire ownership. What a burden.

Not really true.

Oh, it's absolutely true. Perhaps you've never had the misfortune of being behind someone who rides their brakes.

Again, if you properly drive an EV

That's a real big IF, since many people can't properly drive an ICE vehicle.

you likely will never have to change the brakes. In fact, the issue some EV owners have had -- and which the EV6 has a method to try and prevent from happening -- is where they've had to replace the brakes at 100,000 or so miles, not because of use, but because they rusted out because they weren't used. If a person is a complete idiot in most EVs, they might have to repair their brakes about the same time a normal driver might replace brakes on an ICE car; even with the idiot driving, most EVs will still attempt to do most of the stopping with regenerative braking, resorting to adding physical brakes only if the extra stopping power is required.

So brakes may or may not last longer on an EV. Compelling stuff.

Again, you've made it clear you didn't have much interest in an EV, so it isn't surprising.

That's just not true. Before I talked to you, I thought that it might be time for my next second car to be an EV. But after speaking with you and looking into it more, you've made me see that there are even more limitations to EVs than I thought. Until battery tech and charging infrastructure improve, EVs will never achieve mass adoption with all of their current limitations.

As for the K4, it is a refreshed Forte (much as the K5 is a refreshed Optima); and as such it likely won't even have all the tech of the K5, much less the EV6.

I know you think the tech in the EV6 is special and unique, but every time you say things like this, you simply demonstrate your ignorance. I suggest you watch the K4 reveal video to see what it will and won't have. Here is a bullet point list from their website.

• Spacious interior w/ 2nd-row legroom & cargo room rivaling midsize sedans
• 11 standard advanced driver-assistance features w/ up to 29 features available
• Standard 12.3 in. wide screen digital display w/ Wireless Apple CarPlay® and Android Auto™
• Next-level tech with an available 360° Surround View Monitor
• Increased awareness with an available Blind-Spot View Monitor that displays a live video feed of your left and right blind spots in your gauge cluster
• Refined comfort w/ available heated & ventilated front seats
• Standard LED headlights for enhanced road illumination

2025 Kia K4: All-New Compact Sedan with 190 HP & Class-Leading 38" of 2nd-Row Legroom | MSRP & Features | Kia

The next generation Kia K4 sedan delivers a modern design and spacious accommodations. Experience it for yourself first here.

www.kia.com

​

 

[NxNW]

For me, I don't drive, but I am on the line about EVs.

If you don't drive, then your opinion doesn't count for any car, much less EVs.

Here is an analysis of hybrids vs battery electric cars (BEVs).

An analysis by someone who doesn't drive?

For me, the plug in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would make the best choice for most individuals who drive a lot, and live in colder climates. Woo, too many acronyms in my sentence for one day.

1. Cold Weather:
   • PHEVs: Since PHEVs have a gasoline engine, they are less affected by cold weather as compared to BEVs. The gasoline engine can help heat the cabin and provide power when electric batteries lose efficiency in cold conditions.

If you're driving locally, cold weather makes no difference.

1. • BEVs: Cold weather significantly impacts the driving range of BEVs as the battery's efficiency drops due to lower temperatures. Heating the cabin also consumes a considerable amount of electricity, further reducing the range.

If you're driving locally, which is 99% of most people's driving, it doesn't matter.

I know, I know. You're wondering, "What about when we drive 500 miles to see Grandma in South Virginia?" Well, how often do you drive 500 miles to South Virginia? Once a year? I take my EV out of town maybe twice a year. Plugging in at a public charge is just not a big deal.

1. Travel Distances:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs offer more flexibility when it comes to travel distances as they have a gasoline engine for backup. This makes them suitable for longer trips, especially in areas where charging infrastructure is limited or unreliable.

Again, you're obsessing about range.

1. • BEVs: Since BEVs rely solely on electricity stored in their batteries, they have a more limited driving range compared to PHEVs or traditional gasoline vehicles. Longer trips require careful planning and access to charging infrastructure along the way.

Again with the range.

1. Charging:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs can be charged from an external source, but they also have a gasoline engine for backup. This means that while they can be charged faster than BEVs using conventional charging methods, they are not as dependent on charging infrastructure as BEVs.
   • BEVs: BEVs need to be charged from an external source before use, and their charging time depends on the type of charger used. Fast-charging options are available but not as widespread or accessible as conventional charging stations.

In other words, plan ahead? You do realize you can install an app on your phone (or more accurately, several apps because there are many charging networks) that will find the nearest charger?

1. Cost:
   • PHEVs: PHEVs generally have a higher upfront cost compared to traditional gasoline vehicles due to their advanced technology and added battery system. However, they may offer tax incentives and lower operating costs since they can run on electricity for shorter distances. PHEVS are also cheaper to buy compared to pure electric vehicles (BEVS)

It depends.

1. • BEVs: BEVs have a higher upfront cost compared to both PHEVs and traditional gasoline vehicles due to their advanced technology and battery system. However, they offer lower operating costs as electricity is generally less expensive than gasoline in the long run.

Not a very thorough analysis. You didn't discuss maintenance, time spent gassing up, or overall driving experience. Oh, that's right: you don't drive. See above.

 

[NxNW]

There is no question that EVs are depreciating at much faster rates than their ICE counterparts.

If you're not selling the car, then it doesn't really matter. Do you worry about the fluctuations in value of your house if you continue to live there?

And I suspect that most of the Americans have already purchased their EVs. Some analysts believe that this is the year we'll see the first year-over-year decline in EV sales.

It doesn't matter what you believe or suspect. Discuss some actual numbers.

Sure. And those people have probably already bought them. So to repeat the article above, "who, exactly, is left to buy?"

Every year, new drivers come of age. Every year, existing drivers catch a ride in somebody's EV and make a mental note.

There's pretty little maintenance on most new cars, EV or not.

Totally wrong. EVs don't require oil changes or frequent stops at a gas station.

Also, don't forget that tires on an EV wear roughly 20% faster than on an ICE vehicle. Tires are pretty expensive to replace.

Where are you hearing this nonsense? I'm at 60,000 miles and only one my second set of tires. And I'm detecting no battery deterioration.

Yes, an oil change every 6,000 miles or so is required on ICE vehicles.

No, it's every 3000 to 4000 miles. That's the first time I've EVER heard a figure of 6000.

Many dealerships do it for free while you wait and give you free coffee and donuts.

No they don't. Is waiting around for an hour and a half supposed to be convenient?

Before we began this discussion, I was on the fence about my next second car being an EV. But this discussion has all but convinced me that unless the battery tech and charging infrastructure improves drastically over the next few years, they're just not ready for mass adoption for multiple reasons.

Mass adoption is already here.

Denying or downplaying the issues won't make them go away, nor will it convince people to convert.

Posting false information doesn't support your position.

 

[probinson]

If you're not selling the car, then it doesn't really matter.

I suppose. Although I prefer to not be upside down on anything.

Do you worry about the fluctuations in value of your house if you continue to live there?

Not really,. But then, my house is worth a heckuva lot more than I owe on it.

It doesn't matter what you believe or suspect. Discuss some actual numbers.

As I'm sure you know, we won't know until the end of this year if EV sales decline this year or not. So we can only speculate.

Every year, new drivers come of age.

Oh sure. 16-year olds are going to drop $40k+ on an EV. You can't be serious.

Every year, existing drivers catch a ride in somebody's EV and make a mental note.

True, both for and against.

Totally wrong. EVs don't require oil changes or frequent stops at a gas station.

But they do require rather frequent stops at charging stations if you're going further than the range allows you.

I know EV owners are trying to make it seem like a bi-annual oil change (and tire rotation) that takes 30-minutes is burdensome, but no one's really buying it.

Where are you hearing this nonsense? I'm at 60,000 miles and only one my second set of tires.

You could try clicking the link and read the article. It's pretty well-established fact that EVs are harder on tires because they weigh more. Here's some more reading for you.

Why Do Electric Vehicle Tires Wear Out So Quickly? | Sun Auto Service

Discover why EV tires wear out faster and get tips for longevity. Dive in for more information on optimizing your EV's tire performance.

www.caliber.com

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article284533695.html

EV Owners Surprised By Rapid Tire Wear

Compared to traditional combustion vehicles, some EV owners report their tires wearing quickly.

www.sciencefriday.com

EV tires wear down fast, and that’s a pollution problem

Swapping fossil-powered cars for EVs is a win for cutting CO2 emissions, but it may exacerbate particulate pollution from wear and tear on tires.

www.canarymedia.com

The Unexpected Problem With EVs: They 'Tire' Quickly

Electric vehicles go through tires 30% faster than gas-powered vehicles, Bridgestone says, so it developed its first EV-specific replacement tire that protects range and improves durability.

www.pcmag.com

Testing Tires: EV tires wear out faster, according to new study

Toronto, Ontario – A recent study made by Tire Rack aims at tackling the question of whether or not electric vehicles require specific tires. Tire Rack, an American tire company, recently added a Tesla Model 3 to its tire-testing fleet, allowing for expanded testing in areas of wet, dry and...

www.collisionrepairmag.com

And I'm detecting no battery deterioration.

Good for you!

Of course, batteries WILL degrade over time. If it hasn't happened for you yet, it will.

No, it's every 3000 to 4000 miles. That's the first time I've EVER heard a figure of 6000.

When was the last time you looked at a newer ICE vehicle's maintenance schedule? I was being generous at 6,000 miles. Kia recommends I change the oil and rotate my tires on my K5 every 7,500 miles.

No they don't. Is waiting around for an hour and a half supposed to be convenient?

Sorry your dealerships don't offer free oil changes and tire rotations. Mine does, and it usually takes less than 30 minutes, unless I also ask them to wash the car, in which case it might take 45 minutes. They also have some free donuts and coffee while I wait. And it's right on the way home from work, so it's not even out of my way. I have to stop roughly twice/year. A whole hour. Just about as long as 3 stops at a public charger, which I'll bet you stop at more frequently than twice/year.

Mass adoption is already here.

Roughly 3 in 100 cars on the road is currently an EV. That's not "mass adoption" by any definition of the term.

Posting false information doesn't support your position.

Agreed. You should stop doing it immediately.

 

[probinson]

If you don't drive, then your opinion doesn't count for any car, much less EVs.

An analysis by someone who doesn't drive?

You don't have to drive to see the differences between BEVs and PHEVs.

If you're driving locally, cold weather makes no difference.

You should tell the people in Chicago that cold weather makes no difference to them. They'll be glad to hear that.

If you're driving locally, which is 99% of most people's driving, it doesn't matter.

I know, I know. You're wondering, "What about when we drive 500 miles to see Grandma in South Virginia?" Well, how often do you drive 500 miles to South Virginia? Once a year? I take my EV out of town maybe twice a year. Plugging in at a public charge is just not a big deal.

You should get out more. I usually take a minimum of five 500+ mile trips per year. Sometimes as many as ten. In June, I'll be driving from Pennsylvania to Daytona Beach in Florida, well over 1,000 miles one way. Believe it or not, your use-case isn't the same as everyone else's.

Also, plugging in at public chargers might actually cost you MORE on a road trip than putting gas in a car with the electricity rates public chargers are currently charging.

Again, you're obsessing about range.

Again with the range.

You do know that aside from the higher purchase price, range anxiety is the number one hurdle to mass EV adoption, right? But then, how would I expect someone that only leaves town twice/year to understand that?

In other words, plan ahead? You do realize you can install an app on your phone (or more accurately, several apps because there are many charging networks) that will find the nearest charger?

Awesome.

You do realize that I can pull off any exit on any Interstate and find gas within a mile or two, no planning or app required. That day may come for EVs, but it's still a long way off.

Not a very thorough analysis. You didn't discuss maintenance, time spent gassing up, or overall driving experience. Oh, that's right: you don't drive. See above.

"Time spent gassing up". I wonder if you've ever put gas in a car. It takes like 5 minutes, and that's only if it's completely empty.

But again, for someone who does 99% of their driving around town, I'm sure your EV is great. For people who actually leave town frequently, there are significant hurdles to overcome.

 

[SimplyMe]

Again, the reasons really don't matter to people who are now upside down on their loans.

But that happens to anyone that buys a new car, which I believe is part of the reason you talked about how stupid it was to finance a car. Yes, it is currently more on an EV because prices are dropping on them, though not as bad as most other luxury vehicles.

True enough. The more you pay for your car, the quicker it will depreciate. Which would explain why EVs depreciate so quickly, since they are generally far more expensive than any ICE equivalent.

Glad you are getting it, it has to do with the price of the car, not whether or not it is an EV.

I know you think that. But I don't know why.

All of this fancy tech you keep saying is so expensive will be available this year on the K5 and the K4. We'll see what the MSRP is on those.

Maybe, maybe not. Though one glaring omission on the K4 is the smart parking. We'll see when they actually announce prices and features.

I can spot a GT-Line at 20 paces. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the differences. They're pretty obvious.

That's nice, you are likely one of a handful of people in the US. And, oddly, many with the EV6 find the Wind the better trim -- even if you don't like the outside look as much; since the GT-line has those "velour" type seats which appear to wear faster and are difficult to clean, as well as more piano black on the interior. Yes, you prefer the GT-line but you aren't everyone and, for many (maybe even most) the "look" is not worth the increased price.

Agreed. But you started by telling me I'd be choosing the Wind. I would not. I've tried to explain why.

And you are fine to like whatever you want. The issue is that "GT-line" isn't consistent in Kia. On your car, it is not the top tier trim -- at least in terms of features -- when on the EV6 it is (the GT is more expensive but has fewer features, the price difference is the performance and addition of a GT drive mode); so it is hard to actually compare the to -- particularly when there are features on the EV6 GT-line that don't exist on the current K5 (we'll see when they announce the features of the 2025), and many of those are on the Wind that aren't on the K5.

Right. I'm not stupid. Just the things I do. Nice designation.

Again, you've admitted that you believe I do the same thing -- so I guess by your definition you called me "stupid" first.

Yes, by severely downplaying the very real issues with EVs.

I don't think I've really done that. You keep making claims that you can't back up, I show how they are false. I've admitted to most of the "issues" -- though not all people see some of the things you claim are "issues" as real issues.

I have no idea. I'm not in the market for any car right now.

But since you asked, I looked. There is currently a 0.9% financing offer on the Sorento for 48 months. Granted, 0.9% isn't 0%, but it's pretty darn close. And it's not even an EV!

Nifty theory.

So how do you explain the 0.9% financing offer that they currently have on the Sorento? There is no $7,500 cash incentive on that car to give to the finance company. The best they'll do is $750 customer loyalty cash. If your theory is correct, then why is Kia Finance willing to offer such a low interest rate on those vehicles?

Simple, if you actually look at the offer, it is for a new 2023 Sorento (not the 2024); so I can see where they've pay thousands to a finance company because they want to get the old cars off their lots. Looking at my local dealer (which is actually three dealerships), I'm seeing a grand total of one 2023 Sorento that is even available to buy.

And I never said that it had anything to do with EVs. I said it had to do with cars they were trying to discount -- and a 2023 is a model they are definitely discounting to get rid of it; hence 0.90% on a 2023.

Neither am I. But you brought it up.



C'mon. The terms they advertise aren't even the same. The EV6 lease requires $4,499 at signing and the Sorento requires $3,499 at signing. Do you just look at the big number they advertise and assume everything else is equal?

Oh, a downpayment of $1000 more? And, if you check the residual, it is a few hundred more on the EV6. Yet the claim is that the EV6 costs $10,000 more and that is against the cheapest trim. Yet, real life, I'm showing how the midline trim, actual out the door price, is only about $2,000 more than a similar gas car.

Sure I have. You've even admitted it. It's Hertz's fault. Now is a great time to buy a used EV because they have depreciated so much in such a short period of time. You can buy decent used EVs for between $25k and $30k right now on vehicles that are twice that new.

Nope, I never claimed it was "Hertz's fault." I did say Hertz has helped push the used price downward but most of it has to do with the price of what you can buy a new EV6 for today vs what the price was two years ago.

I'm really not. I'm telling you that there are basically no inconveniences with my gas car. It's become such a transparent part of my life that I don't even think about it. Except every 6 months or so when I go get my oil changed and tires rotated.

Yet you still have to spend the time setting up the appointment (particularly if you get in and out in under 30 minutes after work), driving to the dealership, etc. I personally did find it a pain and, with my hybrid and not driving a lot, I even did less frequent oil changes than you. But maybe it was just bad luck that my closest dealership wasn't convenient to my house or that my car was no longer getting "free oil changes" from the dealer. Of course, I seem to recall you actually paid a markup on your K5, it sounded like over MSRP (and no idea what extra charges besides the markup on the car, such as Dealer fees, undercoating, etc.) -- as such, you paid a fair amount for your "free oil changes".

Oh hey, do you still get your tires rotated on an EV? I hope so, especially since tires wear roughly 20% faster on an EV. I bet that takes time. Probably the same amount of time as my oil change and tire rotation combined, since changing oil literally takes just a few minutes.

Actually, tracking down your claim here, it does not support what you are saying. Looking at your first link, it merely repeats the claim from a Forbes article and, going to the Forbes article, it quotes a Michelin executive in a presentation saying, "Conventional tires on an electric vehicle would probably wear out 20% faster." So it isn't any actual study or a look at the tires, and it is looking at if you put different tires on an EV rather than LRR or other tires that are best for an EV. It would be about like you putting softer sports tires on your K5, rather than a harder tire, because you thought it looked cooler or to get off the line a fraction of a second faster.

I might look at more of them later -- though even just looking at the second one they admittedly skewed the results. The compared a Kia Nero Hybrid in their tire test to a Tesla Model Y -- and admit the Model Y is significantly larger (not to mention my larger motors). What makes it worse (and emphasizes the difference in the size of the cars), the Niro has 205/60R16 tires, the Tesla has 255/45R19 tires -- and I'm supposed to take their tire wear comparison seriously? As they point out, they could have done a test comparing tire wear on the Niro Hybrid vs. the Niro EV -- the same car just different versions, and both with the exact same size tire. And despite the way they tried to rig the test, they still only found a 25% difference in tire wear. I have to question if they originally tried the Niro EV, didn't find a measurable difference in wear, so switched to the Tesla to try and make their point.

Last, as I've pointed out, why is there no concern for the #1 selling "car" for the last several years, the Ford F-150? It weighs as much as an EV and likely has as much tire wear. Maybe more, since it doesn't come on LRR tires but frequently large "knobby" tires for the truck to go "off-roading." Again, that light truck category, of which the F-150 is a part, has most of the new cars sold, as it includes the big, heavy SUVs that are built on the same truck chassis, so have the weight. Yet for some reason there is no mention of how we need to downsize cars because of all the pollution the tires make, that argument is strictly limited to EVs. As such, you can tell it isn't a serious argument, just one to make EVs look worse.

Really? I haven't seen you identify any issues with EVs. Could you summarize what you believe are the "serious issues for people with EVs"?

Sure I have. I've mentioned the lack of infrastructure for road trips, that they do have lower range than many gasoline cars, that (because of less energy on board) they do seemingly lose more range in the cold, there is the issue that most apartments or houses with on street parking don't have an easy way to charge an EV, if you are taking a road trip in an EV than planning should be done; have I listed enough yet?

As for "serious issues," I'm not sure there really are any, per se. I will allow that some people might believe some issues are "serious" based on their usage and/or lifestyle but they aren't serious for everyone -- that the "serious issues" tend to be more based on opinion.

Oh, one more disadvantage, there are idiots that will intentionally try to damage EVs out of some political view.

What "logic" are you referring to? The only way you can contend that EVs are "only" $10k more is if you tell people to buy the lowest trim level. The price of EVs quickly jumps for something as simple as a longer range battery.

Nope -- refer to my leasing example above. Again, if you are purchasing outright, you can get a nicely equipped (Wind AWD) for about $45K right now. And equivalent Kia, likely the Sorento, will cost at least $40K, and may even cost that $45K that the EV6 costs for equivalent features.

Not nearly as significant as with EV trim differences.



We'll see when the 2025 K5 line hits the market just how much tech isn't available, and get an idea what it actually costs.

As I've stated all along.

I don't really care about 0-60 second times. They're great for marketing, but that's about tit.

That's nice, it is important for many people. At the same time, it would be nice if less people cared about it as it would lower tire wear; as your links point out much of the difference is from the extra torque many EVs have, (such as the Tesla Model Y), which is what makes them so fast compared to equivalent gas cars.

Of course, you have to take into account the higher price you paid for the car. In many cases, it may take you more than a decade to break even.

​

​

Don't Swap Your Gas-Guzzler for an Electric Vehicle to Avoid High Fuel Prices

EVs make a lot of sense, especially as fuel prices climb, but avoid knee-jerk impulses to buy an electric car just to save money at the pump.

www.cnet.com

​

Again, why are the comparing an EV6 to an Accord, that seems rather random and, I suspect, it has to do with that the Accord is one of the most efficient cars of that size (though it is a sedan, which the EV6 is not). They are also taking one of the cheaper Accords and comparing it price wise based on 2022 prices (as it is an older article) not current pricing.

The more accurate comparison would be a Tesla Model 3 with an equivalent model Accord -- one with most of the bells and whistles. At most, there is less than about $5000 in difference, and that is before the $7500 tax credit on the Model 3, meaning the Model 3 could actually be cheaper.

Of course, every situation is different. But to pretend like just because you're not putting gas in your car you're "saving" money while ignoring the substantially higher price tag you initially paid is disingenuous at best.

Again "I" didn't pay a substantially higher price tag. And I think I mentioned it previously, my daughter paid less for her EV6 than she had for her Kia Stinger (which slotted in just above your K5), so she didn't either.

Well, you've convinced me. EVs are completely free.

I've never made that claim. I've even claimed there is a price difference, just that it is narrowing.

Ot they eat the cost. An incentive, if you will.

Dealers have to compete for business by differentiating themselves with excellent service after the sale. I could have paid $31k for my K5 at any Kia dealer. Some places would have included maintenance after the sale, others wouldn't. They didn't up the price of the vehicle. They just offer free maintenance as an incentive to buy from them instead of their competitors.

Sure, and you likely could have paid $30K for it, at the right dealer -- just that you wouldn't have gotten free oil changes.

Oh wow. I might have to change my coolant 2-4 times over my entire ownership. What a burden.

I never said it was a burden, just something that doesn't have to be done on an EV.

Oh, it's absolutely true. Perhaps you've never had the misfortune of being behind someone who rides their brakes.

No, it isn't -- not for that example. Yes, I've driven behind someone riding their brakes. But, on an EV, he isn't using the brakes, at all, he's just lowering his acceleration (the brake is merely telling the engine to "recuperate" energy). And, depending on the EV, it might actually teach the person not to "ride the brakes" -- as it would make the car harder to drive (more unpredictable) since it is affecting the throttle. And, if the car is one pedal driving, the person should be learning not to hit the brake at all.

Again, on an EV, the only person using the brakes tends to be the guy that does "jackrabbit starts" and sudden stops -- ones where he rushes to the light and then uses the maximum amount of brake to stop -- and he'll still use much less brake then he would in an ICE car.

That's a real big IF, since many people can't properly drive an ICE vehicle.

Again, even if you don't drive it properly, you should still not use brake. Again, it is the idiot always doing sudden stops that actually uses some brake, and even then it should largely be regenerative braking.

So brakes may or may not last longer on an EV. Compelling stuff.

No, they last longer regardless. Just that if someone was determined, they could probably abuse the brakes and they'd only last a similar length to an ICE car -- but they'd really have to try hard -- as opposed to the ICE car where similar abuse of the brakes would have them worn out in half the time or less.

That's just not true. Before I talked to you, I thought that it might be time for my next second car to be an EV. But after speaking with you and looking into it more, you've made me see that there are even more limitations to EVs than I thought. Until battery tech and charging infrastructure improve, EVs will never achieve mass adoption with all of their current limitations.

Do you live in an apartment or otherwise can't charge at home? I'm not sure what limitations there are that prevent you from having an EV for your second car, other than a slightly higher price -- but then again, you have no issue paying thousands more for the car to look "cool" -- so that seems an odd complaint.

I know you think the tech in the EV6 is special and unique, but every time you say things like this, you simply demonstrate your ignorance. I suggest you watch the K4 reveal video to see what it will and won't have. Here is a bullet point list from their website.

2025 Kia K4: All-New Compact Sedan with 190 HP & Class-Leading 38" of 2nd-Row Legroom | MSRP & Features | Kia

The next generation Kia K4 sedan delivers a modern design and spacious accommodations. Experience it for yourself first here.

www.kia.com

​

Again, I already pointed out one of the items it is missing. It's nice that Kia is starting to put the 360 monitor and blind spot cameras on more models. It seems odd that only the headlights will be LED, which implies the rest will not be. Again, we'll see how it compares when we get all the details, and how much the top trim with all the options is going to cost. It will also be interesting to compare it to the Niro -- which appears to be the closest equivalent to the K4.

 

[SimplyMe]

I suppose. Although I prefer to not be upside down on anything.



Not really,. But then, my house is worth a heckuva lot more than I owe on it.



As I'm sure you know, we won't know until the end of this year if EV sales decline this year or not. So we can only speculate.



Oh sure. 16-year olds are going to drop $40k+ on an EV. You can't be serious.

Some of the rich ones will. I wouldn't be surprised to find several drop $20K on a used EV, such as a Chevy Bolt (to include the EUV).

True, both for and against.



But they do require rather frequent stops at charging stations if you're going further than the range allows you.

Depends on how a person travels as to if they are "frequent" or not. It also is worth mentioning that it is widely recommended to take a 15-minute break every two hours that you drive. I realize you don't do that, but that is the recommendation.

I know EV owners are trying to make it seem like a bi-annual oil change (and tire rotation) that takes 30-minutes is burdensome, but no one's really buying it.

No, you aren't buying it, just as I don't buy that it is burdensome to stop for 15 minutes roughly every two hours, like is recommended. We each have our own definitions for "burdensome."

You could try clicking the link and read the article. It's pretty well-established fact that EVs are harder on tires because they weigh more. Here's some more reading for you.

Why Do Electric Vehicle Tires Wear Out So Quickly? | Sun Auto Service

Discover why EV tires wear out faster and get tips for longevity. Dive in for more information on optimizing your EV's tire performance.

www.caliber.com

It makes the 20% claim but doesn't provide any source or evidence to support the claim. It also goes on to state, "However, this mileage can vary depending on individual driving habits and road conditions." Much like brakes (and as other quotes in these other articles supports), much of the difference is based on how a person drives, not solely on the car.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article284533695.html

Yes, the quote from a Michelin executive that if you don't use the proper tires on an EV then it will cause 20% additional tire wear.

EV Owners Surprised By Rapid Tire Wear

Compared to traditional combustion vehicles, some EV owners report their tires wearing quickly.

www.sciencefriday.com

This is based on a quote from an executive at TireRack, and based largely off the fact they are using a Tesla Performance model as their long term EV test car. This would be about like using the Mustang GT (or similar "performance" spec vehicle) to do testing of the average car. He specifically notes, "The reality is, electric vehicles produce instant torque – and usually a lot of it – that wears tires faster inherently due to the added force and can alter people's driving style as they grow accustomed to and enjoy the sensation, which also leads to faster wear."

So this isn't even an "EV" thing, per se (as plenty of EVs actually dial back the torque electronically to prevent the issue with tires), but rather more of a sports car thing -- since ICE engines with high torque suffer the same issues, if not worse. It should also be noted that your K5 actually has more tire wear, since all 4 tires are used for propulsion.

EV tires wear down fast, and that’s a pollution problem

Swapping fossil-powered cars for EVs is a win for cutting CO2 emissions, but it may exacerbate particulate pollution from wear and tear on tires.

www.canarymedia.com

Yes, the one that compared the Model Y to a Niro, rather than comparing the Niro to the Niro EV. Maybe you can find one that does an honest comparison.

The Unexpected Problem With EVs: They 'Tire' Quickly

Electric vehicles go through tires 30% faster than gas-powered vehicles, Bridgestone says, so it developed its first EV-specific replacement tire that protects range and improves durability.

www.pcmag.com

Interestingly, this is based on a comment by a Bridgestone rep -- again, no link or evidence for the claim -- in an article specifically about Bridgestone introducing a tire for EVs (that obviously don't have the same issues as the other tires that wear faster).

Testing Tires: EV tires wear out faster, according to new study

Toronto, Ontario – A recent study made by Tire Rack aims at tackling the question of whether or not electric vehicles require specific tires. Tire Rack, an American tire company, recently added a Tesla Model 3 to its tire-testing fleet, allowing for expanded testing in areas of wet, dry and...

www.collisionrepairmag.com

And this last one references Tire Rack, though no links to their study or any other evidence.

Good for you!

Of course, batteries WILL degrade over time. If it hasn't happened for you yet, it will.

Yes, but slowly enough he's unlikely to notice, particularly with modern Battery Management Systems. Tesla reported in 2019 that, at 200,000 miles there was less than 10% degradation of the battery on their cars.

It's an overstated issue, largely due to cars like the Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus EV, neither of which had cooling for their batteries, so particularly in warm climates (such as Florida and Arizona) their batteries likely needed to be replaced after a few years. On the current EVs, the battery should last as long as the car.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Another achievement of Bidenomics - I can hardly contain the joy!

MSN

“Bidenomics is simple: it means you pay more for goods and services,” Johnson recently posted on X (formerly Twitter). “Americans are spending over $11,400 more annually to buy basic goods under his failed policies.”​

​

Yay! Joe! what joy - what good news for the middle class and lower classes.

 

[probinson]

But that happens to anyone that buys a new car, which I believe is part of the reason you talked about how stupid it was to finance a car.

I never said it was stupid to finance a car. In fact, the only one who has invoked the word "stupid" is you.

I said that you will never come out ahead if there is a 0% financing offer vs. a cash offer IF you are choosing to finance. It's really not that complicated.

Yes, it is currently more on an EV because prices are dropping on them, though not as bad as most other luxury vehicles.

Glad you are getting it, it has to do with the price of the car, not whether or not it is an EV.

Since we're talking about what it will take for mass adoption, I think it's perfectly acceptable to ignore luxury vehicles, since the same people that currently aren't buying luxury vehicles are the same ones not buying EVs.

Maybe, maybe not. Though one glaring omission on the K4 is the smart parking.

The smart parking isn't that great. I've watched a few demo videos on YouTube. The car usually takes 3-5 corrections to actually back into a parking space correctly and takes a ridiculous amount of time to do so. A neat trick to show off for sure, but not exactly practical.

Likewise, you can see videos of Tesla's auto summon running amok on YouTube. These features don't work nearly as well as advertised and are just marketing gimmicks. Until smart parking can park as well as I can (one maneuver to back into a space in just a few seconds), I'm not really interested. Neither is anyone else, besides showing off a neat trick that the car can do (with a fair amount of coaxing).

We'll see when they actually announce prices and features.

Kia has already said that the 2025 K5 pricing will be roughly the same as the 2024, even with the addition of all this new tech. We should be able to find out in a month or so.

That's nice, you are likely one of a handful of people in the US.

Just because you don't know how to recognize a car by its trim doesn't mean you're the norm. Trust me when I say, there are MANY, MANY people who can identify a car by looking at it. You know, since they're visually different.

And, oddly, many with the EV6 find the Wind the better trim -- even if you don't like the outside look as much; since the GT-line has those "velour" type seats which appear to wear faster and are difficult to clean, as well as more piano black on the interior. Yes, you prefer the GT-line but you aren't everyone and, for many (maybe even most) the "look" is not worth the increased price.

People have paid a premium for brand names and "looks" forever. Sure, some people don't care and won't pay the extra price, but others will happily shell out for a "cooler" look. It's why different trim levels exist, to serve different customers and different preferences.

And you are fine to like whatever you want. The issue is that "GT-line" isn't consistent in Kia. On your car, it is not the top tier trim -- at least in terms of features -- when on the EV6 it is (the GT is more expensive but has fewer features, the price difference is the performance and addition of a GT drive mode); so it is hard to actually compare the to -- particularly when there are features on the EV6 GT-line that don't exist on the current K5 (we'll see when they announce the features of the 2025), and many of those are on the Wind that aren't on the K5.

This is like beating a dead horse. Listen to me one more time.

I. Don't. Care.

I would not buy an EV6 Wind. Period. It's lack of a sunroof is a non-starter for me.

Again, you've admitted that you believe I do the same thing -- so I guess by your definition you called me "stupid" first.

You should really own your words. You've used the word "stupid" multiple times in this discussion. I have not used it once, other than quoting you.

I don't think I've really done that. You keep making claims that you can't back up, I show how they are false.

Baloney. I've backed up everything I've said with links, screenshots, articles and more.

I've admitted to most of the "issues" -- though not all people see some of the things you claim are "issues" as real issues.

Right. And when we started this discussion, I was perfectly fine with that assessment. There most certainly are use-cases where EVs are wonderful. But not for every use-case. Your insistence that because these things are not issues for you means that I was exaggerating them is how we ended up in this discussion. So your EV works for you? Great! Enjoy it and all the benefits it provides. But you are not everyone, and there are issues that exist with EVs that you keep downplaying because they don't matter to you. Your dismissal of others concerns is a surefire way to turn people off.

Simple, if you actually look at the offer, it is for a new 2023 Sorento (not the 2024); so I can see where they've pay thousands to a finance company because they want to get the old cars off their lots. Looking at my local dealer (which is actually three dealerships), I'm seeing a grand total of one 2023 Sorento that is even available to buy.

And I never said that it had anything to do with EVs. I said it had to do with cars they were trying to discount -- and a 2023 is a model they are definitely discounting to get rid of it; hence 0.90% on a 2023.

Toyota just ended a 0% financing offer (on April 1) on the 2024 Toyota Crown. 0% offers aren't limited to cars that have cash incentives on them. There are a plethora of reasons why incentives are offered.

Oh, a downpayment of $1000 more?

Yes.

And, if you check the residual, it is a few hundred more on the EV6.

So what. Unless you plan to purchase your vehicle at the end of your lease (which is almost NEVER beneficial), the residual value doesn't mean squat to the original lessee.

Yet the claim is that the EV6 costs $10,000 more and that is against the cheapest trim. Yet, real life, I'm showing how the midline trim, actual out the door price, is only about $2,000 more than a similar gas car.

For a lease. Not to purchase. But you said you didn't want to talk bout leases. It's hard to keep up...

Nope, I never claimed it was "Hertz's fault."

That's true. I was paraphrasing. What you actually said in post #276 was "Hertz, that is the reason why."

I did say Hertz has helped push the used price downward but most of it has to do with the price of what you can buy a new EV6 for today vs what the price was two years ago.

Not really. While there were market adjustments on almost all new cars a few years ago, they have not suffered the same rate of depreciation.

Of course, I seem to recall you actually paid a markup on your K5, it sounded like over MSRP (and no idea what extra charges besides the markup on the car, such as Dealer fees, undercoating, etc.) -- as such, you paid a fair amount for your "free oil changes".

You're working very hard at making this sound like a burdensome task. You're failing.

Yes, I did pay a $500 market adjustment on my K5, but that had nothing to do with free oil changes as you well know.

The reason I paid a $500 market adjustment (down from $1k that everyone else was paying) is because EVERY DEALERSHIP was charging market adjustments ON EVERY CAR in 2022. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the service offered after the sale.

You've already pointed out that the EV6 had a pretty substantial markup on it in 2022. It's the flimsy foundation on which your claim of rapid depreciation rests. Yet we know that EVs don't require oil changes. Clearly the market adjustments were not for service appointments.

Actually, tracking down your claim here, it does not support what you are saying.

See? Even when I post hard evidence, you just pretend like it's not real. EVs weigh more. If you drive them a lot, the tires will wear faster. It's pretty simple.

Sure I have. I've mentioned the lack of infrastructure for road trips, that they do have lower range than many gasoline cars, that (because of less energy on board) they do seemingly lose more range in the cold, there is the issue that most apartments or houses with on street parking don't have an easy way to charge an EV, if you are taking a road trip in an EV than planning should be done; have I listed enough yet?

Yes. Those are all the reasons I've listed. They are significant to me and to many others.

As for "serious issues," I'm not sure there really are any, per se.

Do you even consider your words before you speak? In the last post you said, "I've admitted that there are serious issues for people with EVs". Now you're not sure if there are any. It's hard to know what you think when you keep flip-flopping.

I will allow that some people might believe some issues are "serious" based on their usage and/or lifestyle but they aren't serious for everyone -- that the "serious issues" tend to be more based on opinion.

Almost had it. It's not "opinion". It's USE-CASE.

Oh, one more disadvantage, there are idiots that will intentionally try to damage EVs out of some political view.

There are people who vandalize cars in parking lots just trying to look cool. I see no evidence that EV owners are more likely to suffer vandalism than anyone else.

Nope -- refer to my leasing example above.

I thought someone said: "I could care less about debating leases," Yet here we are.

Again, if you are purchasing outright, you can get a nicely equipped (Wind AWD) for about $45K right now. And equivalent Kia, likely the Sorento, will cost at least $40K, and may even cost that $45K that the EV6 costs for equivalent features.

I'm not buying an EV Wind. Or a Sorento. And just because you think those are the two most similar vehicles does NOT mean that someone else will agree. The bottom line is EVs are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive to purchase UNLESS you take a base-model trim. And even then, you'll likely pay more than a more nicely equipped ICE vehicle.

Again, why are the comparing an EV6 to an Accord, that seems rather random ...

...my daughter paid less for her EV6 than she had for her Kia Stinger (which slotted in just above your K5), so she didn't either.

Look at you, complaining when people make comparisons you don't like, but then comparing a Stinger to an EV6. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.

I've never made that claim. I've even claimed there is a price difference, just that it is narrowing.

Which I said at the very beginning.

Sure, and you likely could have paid $30K for it, at the right dealer -- just that you wouldn't have gotten free oil changes.

Tell me you don't understand what a market adjustment is without telling me you don't understand what a market adjustment is.

No, it isn't -- not for that example. Yes, I've driven behind someone riding their brakes. But, on an EV, he isn't using the brakes, at all, he's just lowering his acceleration (the brake is merely telling the engine to "recuperate" energy).

It's cute that you think someone who has unnecessarily ridden their brakes all their life is suddenly going to stop doing that when they get an EV.

And, depending on the EV, it might actually teach the person not to "ride the brakes" -- as it would make the car harder to drive (more unpredictable) since it is affecting the throttle. And, if the car is one pedal driving, the person should be learning not to hit the brake at all.

I have zero confidence that people who can't figure out how to not ride the brake in their ICE vehicle will be able to figure out how to do it in an EV.

Again, on an EV, the only person using the brakes tends to be the guy that does "jackrabbit starts" and sudden stops -- ones where he rushes to the light and then uses the maximum amount of brake to stop -- and he'll still use much less brake then he would in an ICE car.


Again, even if you don't drive it properly, you should still not use brake. Again, it is the idiot always doing sudden stops that actually uses some brake, and even then it should largely be regenerative braking.

You do realize that for mass adoption of these vehicles, all of these "idiots" you're referring to will have to buy EVs, right? And you do realize that they won't stop being "idiots" just because they bought an EV, right?

No, they last longer regardless. Just that if someone was determined, they could probably abuse the brakes and they'd only last a similar length to an ICE car -- but they'd really have to try hard -- as opposed to the ICE car where similar abuse of the brakes would have them worn out in half the time or less.

Look at you grasping at straws to try to find another benefit for EVs. Again, brakes may or may not last longer on an EV depending on how the person drives it.

Do you live in an apartment or otherwise can't charge at home? I'm not sure what limitations there are that prevent you from having an EV for your second car, other than a slightly higher price -- but then again, you have no issue paying thousands more for the car to look "cool" -- so that seems an odd complaint.

I have a single car garage. I don't really want an extension cord running out to the turnaround to charge at home. I suppose I could pay even a few thousand more to have a home charger installed.

Again, I already pointed out one of the items it is missing.

Yes, the klutzy self parking feature that looks like a teenager on their first day of driving. Big loss there.

It's nice that Kia is starting to put the 360 monitor and blind spot cameras on more models. It seems odd that only the headlights will be LED, which implies the rest will not be. Again, we'll see how it compares when we get all the details, and how much the top trim with all the options is going to cost. It will also be interesting to compare it to the Niro -- which appears to be the closest equivalent to the K4.

So you're just going to gloss over the fact that you were completely wrong when you said the K4 will be less equipped than my current 2022 K5?

 

[probinson]

Some of the rich ones will. I wouldn't be surprised to find several drop $20K on a used EV, such as a Chevy Bolt (to include the EUV).

Maybe. Of course, they may not, since as you pointed out, the Chevy Bolt is one of the slowest charging EVs on the market, and not too many people (especially impatient teenagers) want to sit for 90 minutes or more while their car charges if they want to go somewhere.

Depends on how a person travels as to if they are "frequent" or not. It also is worth mentioning that it is widely recommended to take a 15-minute break every two hours that you drive. I realize you don't do that, but that is the recommendation.

I'm sure there are all sorts of recommendations you don't follow, as we all do.

No, you aren't buying it,

Neither are a lot of other people.

just as I don't buy that it is burdensome to stop for 15 minutes roughly every two hours, like is recommended. We each have our own definitions for "burdensome."

Yes, but for mass EV adoption, those burdensome things will need to be addressed. Longer range, faster charge times. Those will be necessary to convince the masses.

Also, you have to ensure that your once every 2-hour stop is in the vicinity of a fast charger if you plan to only stop for 15 minutes. Otherwise you might be there quite a bit longer.

It makes the 20% claim but doesn't provide any source or evidence to support the claim.

I get it. You don't believe the myriad of articles that are talking about how EV tires wear faster. Believe what you will.

Yes, but slowly enough he's unlikely to notice, particularly with modern Battery Management Systems. Tesla reported in 2019 that, at 200,000 miles there was less than 10% degradation of the battery on their cars.

EV batteries definitely degrade much more slowly than other batteries.

It's an overstated issue, largely due to cars like the Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus EV, neither of which had cooling for their batteries, so particularly in warm climates (such as Florida and Arizona) their batteries likely needed to be replaced after a few years. On the current EVs, the battery should last as long as the car.

It's overstated, until it happens to you and you're on the hook to replace the battery.

 

[SimplyMe]

I never said it was stupid to finance a car. In fact, the only one who has invoked the word "stupid" is you.

I said that you will never come out ahead if there is a 0% financing offer vs. a cash offer IF you are choosing to finance. It's really not that complicated.



Since we're talking about what it will take for mass adoption, I think it's perfectly acceptable to ignore luxury vehicles, since the same people that currently aren't buying luxury vehicles are the same ones not buying EVs.

Odd, then, that the average new car price is over $48K -- seems like more than a few are wanting luxury.

The smart parking isn't that great. I've watched a few demo videos on YouTube. The car usually takes 3-5 corrections to actually back into a parking space correctly and takes a ridiculous amount of time to do so. A neat trick to show off for sure, but not exactly practical.

Likewise, you can see videos of Tesla's auto summon running amok on YouTube. These features don't work nearly as well as advertised and are just marketing gimmicks. Until smart parking can park as well as I can (one maneuver to back into a space in just a few seconds), I'm not really interested. Neither is anyone else, besides showing off a neat trick that the car can do (with a fair amount of coaxing).

Why should I care that you don't like it? Apparently plenty of people do find it useful since it keeps getting added to vehicles. I will say, I've sometimes had to park in a crowded parking lot and had someone pull within six inches of my car, trying to fit into a parking space not large enough for their car. The most recent time was at a hospital; where I had to go in through the passenger side and climb across. I have to say, having the ability to back the car out of the parking spot so it would be easier to get in would be really nice in that situation.

Kia has already said that the 2025 K5 pricing will be roughly the same as the 2024, even with the addition of all this new tech. We should be able to find out in a month or so.

Pricing will start at roughly the same price. We'll see when they release the information.

Just because you don't know how to recognize a car by its trim doesn't mean you're the norm. Trust me when I say, there are MANY, MANY people who can identify a car by looking at it. You know, since they're visually different.



People have paid a premium for brand names and "looks" forever. Sure, some people don't care and won't pay the extra price, but others will happily shell out for a "cooler" look. It's why different trim levels exist, to serve different customers and different preferences.

Sure, people have. At the same time, aside from you (and I'm sure there are a few more on some K5 forum) I've never talked to anyone who could identify the various trims of the K5 by sight.

This is like beating a dead horse. Listen to me one more time.

I. Don't. Care.

I would not buy an EV6 Wind. Period. It's lack of a sunroof is a non-starter for me.

Who said you should? What makes this about you. I even stated, "And you are fine to like whatever you want."

You should really own your words. You've used the word "stupid" multiple times in this discussion. I have not used it once, other than quoting you.



Baloney. I've backed up everything I've said with links, screenshots, articles and more.

Yes, links that don't support what you've claimed, that go to articles that make claims they don't support, etc. What you haven't linked is actual evidence.

Right. And when we started this discussion, I was perfectly fine with that assessment. There most certainly are use-cases where EVs are wonderful. But not for every use-case. Your insistence that because these things are not issues for you means that I was exaggerating them is how we ended up in this discussion. So your EV works for you? Great! Enjoy it and all the benefits it provides. But you are not everyone, and there are issues that exist with EVs that you keep downplaying because they don't matter to you. Your dismissal of others concerns is a surefire way to turn people off.

I never claimed I was "everyone." By the same token, particularly with your taking my comments about the Wind trim so personally, seem to be the one that doesn't understand that not everyone is you.

Toyota just ended a 0% financing offer (on April 1) on the 2024 Toyota Crown. 0% offers aren't limited to cars that have cash incentives on them. There are a plethora of reasons why incentives are offered.

That's nice. I didn't claim they all had some type of cash incentive. What I stated is that they are models that the manufacturer is willing to help pay the financing on to the tune of several thousand dollars -- or do you think Toyota just managed to find banks that will give them a 0% interest rate on the Crown, just for being Toyota? Though I'm guessing that the deal was through Toyota's own finance company, so Toyota is eating a several thousand dollar loss on the loan in order to sell a particular model of car that isn't selling well.

Yes.



So what. Unless you plan to purchase your vehicle at the end of your lease (which is almost NEVER beneficial), the residual value doesn't mean squat to the original lessee.



For a lease. Not to purchase. But you said you didn't want to talk bout leases. It's hard to keep up...

I didn't have much interest, but you keep talking about them so I keep responding.

That's true. I was paraphrasing. What you actually said in post #276 was "Hertz, that is the reason why."

It was the main reason I was able to get a great deal, which you'll notice is what I was talking about when I stated that, because I was able to leverage the price Hertz had advertised. It is a reason the EV6 in general has depreciated so much.

Not really. While there were market adjustments on almost all new cars a few years ago, they have not suffered the same rate of depreciation.





You're working very hard at making this sound like a burdensome task. You're failing.

Depends on the person. Not a burdensome task for you, but at least two of us on this thread have had a different opinion.

Yes, I did pay a $500 market adjustment on my K5, but that had nothing to do with free oil changes as you well know.

The reason I paid a $500 market adjustment (down from $1k that everyone else was paying) is because EVERY DEALERSHIP was charging market adjustments ON EVERY CAR in 2022. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the service offered after the sale.

No, not every dealer. I know plenty of people that shopped around until they found a dealer that wasn't charging a market adjustment, even if they had to wait a bit and even travel to pick up their car. Of course, they didn't get the free oil changes.

You've already pointed out that the EV6 had a pretty substantial markup on it in 2022. It's the flimsy foundation on which your claim of rapid depreciation rests. Yet we know that EVs don't require oil changes. Clearly the market adjustments were not for service appointments.

No, the market adjustment alone wasn't the reason for your free oil changes. OTOH, it likely had a lot to do with you being a repeat customer that paid over MSRP and that they wanted to give you something to help you "feel good" about your purchase, so you would come back again in the future. OTOH, you never did tell us if there were other markups on your vehicle, such as some type of "anti-theft" item, undercoating, etc.

See? Even when I post hard evidence, you just pretend like it's not real. EVs weigh more. If you drive them a lot, the tires will wear faster. It's pretty simple.

So you keep claiming -- but you keep ignoring that "light truck" (which includes most SUVs) also weigh more. You also ignore that tire maintenance and driving habits can cause more than 50% more wear. It isn't nearly as simple as what you are trying to make it out -- which is part of why your one source compared a Niro Hybrid with a Tesla, rather than the tire wear of a Niro Hybrid vs. a Niro EV.

Yes. Those are all the reasons I've listed. They are significant to me and to many others.

That's nice.

Do you even consider your words before you speak? In the last post you said, "I've admitted that there are serious issues for people with EVs". Now you're not sure if there are any. It's hard to know what you think when you keep flip-flopping.



Almost had it. It's not "opinion". It's USE-CASE.

It's your "use-case" based off of your opinions. It doesn't match everyone else's "use-case", put it is based on a presumption of what it would be like rather than actual experimentation.

There are people who vandalize cars in parking lots just trying to look cool. I see no evidence that EV owners are more likely to suffer vandalism than anyone else.



I thought someone said: "I could care less about debating leases," Yet here we are.





I'm not buying an EV Wind. Or a Sorento. And just because you think those are the two most similar vehicles does NOT mean that someone else will agree. The bottom line is EVs are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive to purchase UNLESS you take a base-model trim. And even then, you'll likely pay more than a more nicely equipped ICE vehicle.

Again, not about you. Sorry, I've shown you actual facts and you keep denying them, largely because it is more than the car you chose, despite the fact most people would chose something different (some type of CUV/SUV).

Look at you, complaining when people make comparisons you don't like, but then comparing a Stinger to an EV6. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, it is different -- the Stinger is more or less comparable to your K5, as it was removed from the Kia lineup when the K5 was introduced to replace the Optima. While the Stinger was a bit larger and sportier than the Optima, the K5 is a bit larger than the Optima and got "sporty" trims that allowed the Stinger to be replaced. So the fact that my daughter got an EV6 cheaper than the Stinger she replaced, when the cars aren't comparable, says a lot about the affordability of EVs.

Which I said at the very beginning.





Tell me you don't understand what a market adjustment is without telling me you don't understand what a market adjustment is.



It's cute that you think someone who has unnecessarily ridden their brakes all their life is suddenly going to stop doing that when they get an EV.



I have zero confidence that people who can't figure out how to not ride the brake in their ICE vehicle will be able to figure out how to do it in an EV.



You do realize that for mass adoption of these vehicles, all of these "idiots" you're referring to will have to buy EVs, right? And you do realize that they won't stop being "idiots" just because they bought an EV, right?

That's nice but has zero to do with what I was talking about. Again, the point was that the "idiots" (and you get after me for using the word "stupid") still won't use their brake on an EV -- it won't cause the brakes to wear faster whether they learn or not.

Look at you grasping at straws to try to find another benefit for EVs. Again, brakes may or may not last longer on an EV depending on how the person drives it.

Tell me you don't understand regenerative braking. Sorry, they will last longer on an EV, as the regenerative braking will still help limit the wear on the physical brakes.

I have a single car garage. I don't really want an extension cord running out to the turnaround to charge at home. I suppose I could pay even a few thousand more to have a home charger installed.

Or, buy the right EV and you might get it free; kind of like you got free oil changes. I noticed an ad today that a local Kia dealer here is offering a free Level 2 charger with purchase of an EV6. I believe Chevrolet is still offering the $1500 credit toward a home charging station installation with the purchase of any EV (something they've had for a few years, even with the Bolt).

Yes, the klutzy self parking feature that looks like a teenager on their first day of driving. Big loss there.



So you're just going to gloss over the fact that you were completely wrong when you said the K4 will be less equipped than my current 2022 K5?

I'm waiting to see what the actual options are but, if Kia holds true to form, the K4 will have fewer features available than the K5 -- they need to have some reason for you to step up to a higher priced vehicle.

 

[SimplyMe]

Maybe. Of course, they may not, since as you pointed out, the Chevy Bolt is one of the slowest charging EVs on the market, and not too many people (especially impatient teenagers) want to sit for 90 minutes or more while their car charges if they want to go somewhere.

How many teens are taking their cheap cars on long road trips? For most teens, being able to charge at home (and not have to pay for gas, but get free electricity from Mom and Dad) would be a huge bonus to the car.

I'm sure there are all sorts of recommendations you don't follow, as we all do.

Not sure it is relevant, nor that you have any clue. That people don't follow it does not mean it isn't what is recommended with solid reasoning behind it.

Neither are a lot of other people.



Yes, but for mass EV adoption, those burdensome things will need to be addressed. Longer range, faster charge times. Those will be necessary to convince the masses.

Will it? I think Norway is an interesting test case. They have strong EV adoption, people are very happy with their EVs, and they haven't had the various issues like not enough power that all the anti-EV people claim. There is a lot of BS out there about EVs, some of which you keep repeating. Yes, more infrastructure needs to be built out but it is coming faster than most people realize -- and helped more by the fact that the Tesla charging standard is being adopted as the standard for basically all cars sold in the US, meaning most EVs will be able to charge at Tesla charging stations (older models typically using an adapter looking like this, which Ford gave to owners of their EVs).

Also, you have to ensure that your once every 2-hour stop is in the vicinity of a fast charger if you plan to only stop for 15 minutes. Otherwise you might be there quite a bit longer.

Not an issue in most areas of the US (though Wyoming and Montana may still be an issue), though even those areas are starting to get stations built.

I get it. You don't believe the myriad of articles that are talking about how EV tires wear faster. Believe what you will.

Yes, I find it questionable when they have a tire executive and misuse his quote about how an EV using non-EV specific tires may put more wear on the tires by 20%, or when they compare tire wear between a Niro Hybrid and a Tesla rather than a Niro EV, etc. None of them can point to any real studies or evidence that prove the 20% difference. And, again, you completely ignore the largest "car" segment in the US is of vehicles that weigh roughly the same as current EVs, as well as the fact that driving style and tire care can cause 50% faster wear. This seems like more of an invented issue rather than a serious concern.

EV batteries definitely degrade much more slowly than other batteries.

Yes, they do tend to, depending on what you mean by "other batteries." But if you compare it to the battery in your cell phone -- the battery in the cell phone is not actively cooled, while it may have a Battery Management System (BMS) that tries to keep it from getting too hot, other than stopping/slowing a charging session or slowing down your phone (when you are taxing the battery heavily), there isn't much it can do -- and often the manufacturer, only planning the battery to last for two or three years, doesn't want the BMS slowing charing or the phone as being slower will drive people to buy their competitors phone.

Additionally, on your phone, typically you can use the full capacity of the battery -- they want to allow you to have the longest battery life possible. Again, on an EV, you can't use the full capacity, they leave a small percentage unused to help protect it from become undercharged (in case you run the battery all the way to zero) or overcharged. To give an example, while the EV6 bigger battery is listed at 77.4kWh, tests have found the batteries are actually 80.2 kWh. On top of that, while the battery is rated at 77.4 kWh, the actual usable amount by the driver is about 74.0kWh. From at least one test I've seen, it appears you can get the 77.4kWh out of the battery but it reads a 0% battery level after you'd used 74kWh -- kind of like on most gas cars you have an extra half gallon left in the tank when your car claims you have no range left.

Again, Tesla's study (2019) found that after 200,000 miles, the batteries in their cars had less than 10% degradation; tests by Hyundai, Ford and others show that EV batteries should last as long, or longer, than the car.

It's overstated, until it happens to you and you're on the hook to replace the battery.

Considering that all EV batteries are warrantied for at least 8 years and 100,000 miles in the US (10 years for Hyundai and Kia), transferable, it will be a long time before you are on the hook for a battery. Longer if you live in California, which mandates a 150,000 mile, 10 year warranty for batteries. That includes degradation -- my understanding with the Kia warranty is if your battery loses more than 30% of capacity in that time that they will replace the battery.

 

[NxNW]

I suppose. Although I prefer to not be upside down on anything.

You're upside down on an ICE car as soon as you drive it off the lot, so you don't have much of an argument here.

Not really,. But then, my house is worth a heckuva lot more than I owe on it.

Not always true, depending on when you buy. Does that mean houses are a bad buy?

Oh sure. 16-year olds are going to drop $40k+ on an EV. You can't be serious.

Nothing's stopping Mom from handing her old one down so she can buy a new EV.

But they do require rather frequent stops at charging stations if you're going further than the range allows you.

Depends on how you define "frequent".

I know EV owners are trying to make it seem like a bi-annual oil change (and tire rotation) that takes 30-minutes is burdensome, but no one's really buying it.

I drove an ICE car for decades. You have to wait at the gas station many many times a year, plus the oil changes that takes more than an hour (especially at a dealer).

You could try clicking the link and read the article. It's pretty well-established fact that EVs are harder on tires because they weigh more.

They're also made to be more sturdy.

Here's some more reading for you.

It's just propaganda.

Of course, batteries WILL degrade over time. If it hasn't happened for you yet, it will.

How much and when? Should I be concerned over 1%?

When was the last time you looked at a newer ICE vehicle's maintenance schedule?

Last time I had an ICE car, which was 2017. Did something suddenly change?

I was being generous at 6,000 miles. Kia recommends I change the oil and rotate my tires on my K5 every 7500 miles.

That's an exception, not the rule, and therefore not a valid argument
https://www.regalkia.com/service/service-parts-information/kia-k5-maintenance-schedule/

Sorry your dealerships don't offer free oil changes and tire rotations. Mine does, and it usually takes less than 30 minutes, unless I also ask them to wash the car, in which case it might take 45 minutes. They also have some free donuts and coffee while I wait. And it's right on the way home from work, so it's not even out of my way.

Your anecdotes aren't much of an argument.

I have to stop roughly twice/year. A whole hour. Just about as long as 3 stops at a public charger, which I'll bet you stop at more frequently than twice/year.

Actually, it's once or twice a year. I don't need to drive more than 240 miles in a day very often, so there's my own anecdote.

Agreed. You should stop doing it immediately.

I haven't posted anything false here.

 

[NxNW]

You don't have to drive to see the differences between BEVs and PHEVs.

Actually, you do.

You should tell the people in Chicago that cold weather makes no difference to them. They'll be glad to hear that.

You have to use common sense as well. Everyone knows the range decreases, but not so much that you can't do your daily driving.

You should get out more.

I never said I don't get out much.

I usually take a minimum of five 500+ mile trips per year. Sometimes as many as ten. In June, I'll be driving from Pennsylvania to Daytona Beach in Florida, well over 1,000 miles one way. Believe it or not, your use-case isn't the same as everyone else's.

As long as you're throwing anecdotes out, plenty of people drive cross country in EVs with no major issues.

Also, plugging in at public chargers might actually cost you MORE on a road trip than putting gas in a car with the electricity rates public chargers are currently charging.

If you have a membership with a charging network, you may get a discount.

You do know that aside from the higher purchase price, range anxiety is the number one hurdle to mass EV adoption, right?

Anxiety from people who've never driven one?

But then, how would I expect someone that only leaves town twice/year to understand that?

I never said I only leave town once or twice a year. Please stop making false claims about what I said.

You do realize that I can pull off any exit on any Interstate and find gas within a mile or two, no planning or app required.

Is all of your driving is on interstates? And if you have to drive two miles through two dozen stoplights looking for a gas station, how long does that take? When I was driving back to a small airport to return my rental car a couple years ago, I was traveling thru a rural area and there was not a single gas station to be found. I ended up having to return the car half empty and paying the ridiculous gas prices ($20 per quarter tank, I think) charged by the rental company. So it's not always as convenient as you seem to think.

"Time spent gassing up". I wonder if you've ever put gas in a car. It takes like 5 minutes, and that's only if it's completely empty.

Oh, I used to live near a Costco, with the cheapest gas in town. If you got there at the right time, you might be third in line and it would only take 15 minutes. That's an hour a month. Though if the tanker truck was blocking half the pumps, as it often was, it might take longer. Again, you're not counting the time to drive to the gas station, waiting in line, etc.

But again, for someone who does 99% of their driving around town, I'm sure your EV is great. For people who actually leave town frequently, there are significant hurdles to overcome.

Again, I never said I don't leave town. But it's unrealistic to drive to other continents. If it's cross country, I'll fly. If it's two states over, I'll fly. If it's one state over, there's a good chance I'll fly. The downside of flying is that I have to rent an ICE car when I arrive, and it's always an inferior experience compared to an EV.