New vehicles of any kind are the height of financial irresponsibility, and represent a horrifically bad “investment” in both the short term and the long term.
The age at which any vehicle flips into being a good investment - 10-20 years old (the global minimum of purchase cost + ongoing repair costs) - is the time frame in which EV batteries become exhausted and require complete replacement at many tens of thousands of dollars, completely negating the financial benefits of a used vehicle.
So unless electric vehicles come with batteries that have lifespans in the 30-50 year range, a purpose-built electric vehicle of any age just isn’t a responsible financial decision for anyone who isn’t looking to burn their money for a vanity purchase.
The reason It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) holds up so well is that George’s line, “You know how long it takes a working man to save $5000?” has somehow not aged even slightly.
an ICE engine car will cost much more than $4k to maintain over the life of a Leaf battery
To maintain??
looks at personal financials
What kind of shitbox cars have you bought? I’m on my 12th year of a 2001 Mazda 626, and a look at the Quicken category for it shows all of $1,834 spent on essential (non-cosmetic) parts beyond fuel, oil, and tyres. And yes, that’s across a dozen years, to the tune of about $152/yr.
Granted, it’s only around 200k on the odometer. But it sees almost daily use.
And EVs will be much harder on tyres due to being double to triple the weight, and so will require either much more expensive tyres or more frequent replacement.
The fact remains that 12 years in, I am still financially ahead of any brand-new vehicle, ICE or EV.
That said, no car is an investment, in terms of it appreciating in value. I’m sure you know that just I’ve seen some comments along those lines when people talk about electric cars depreciating.
I would never buy any vehicle that’s 10-20 years old if I have any other options available. A lot of shelf life used up at that point.
I bought a used 2023 bolt this year with only 5k miles on it. My previous car was a new 2008 Kia and I figured out with inflation I paid about the same for that one as I will for this one.
I would never buy any vehicle that’s 10-20 years old if I have any other options available.
If you cared anything about your personal privacy, you wouldn’t touch anything made after 2006 (and a surprising number of vehicles after 1996). They all have black boxes that record all of your driving history, and many models squirt that data back up to the corporate mothership to have your personal and private driving behaviour monetized without your consent. Plus, even what stays on your car is encrypted such that you have zero access to it, and your insurance company can trivially gain access to that data to weaponize it against you in case of an insurance claim.
I would never take a post-2006 vehicle even if it was free, except to immediately re-sell it. Modern vehicles make the Stasi’s surveillance system look like rank amateurs.
I used to think that a decade or so ago, but between things like the Texas districts profiting most from wind being the most against it to basically everything this congress has done, it is become increasingly clear that Trump successfully made ‘owning the libs’ the party’s primary platform.
They are already cheaper long term, near parity short term, and charging corridors have gone from just along freeways to most highways, but most Republicans will still call them useless vanity items because why would you give up the ‘freedom’ of gas.
You are taking about a party where a significant portion have been sold massive impractical pickup trucks that never get off the pavement because of marketing that a big expensive truck is ‘manly’ and ‘free’. In that paradime, where a car is a form of personal expression based on marketing, things like practically or cost are not going to be significant factors in decision making.
After all, if the practicality or cost were driving factors, every Republican would drive a Japanese sedan or van and bike everywhere they could.
Even if every quibble was solved, we’d still see pushback because ‘I just don’t like it’, or ‘rolling coal owns the libs’.
if you applied classic Conservative principles of conserving individual liberty and being self-sufficient
if the practicality or cost were driving factors, every Republican
Would support relaxed zoning laws which enable the building of higher density, more eco-friendly and lower tax burden neighbourhoods. Places which make it easier to get around by walking or cycling. Places that make it feasible to get by without a car, or with only one car instead of two or three.
I think a big portion of the root cause comes from the years of Russian astroturfing of the conservative online spaces. Russia is bigly into oil marketing, and supporting the usage of oil is aligned with their national interests. They have been basically brainwashing conservatives to support oil companies for many years, and now it’s part of their cultural identity.
But if you applied classic Conservative principles of conserving individual liberty and being self-sufficient, it becomes obvious that having an electric car would be an advantage. You can make your own power at home and be free from dependence on gas stations to power your freedom to travel.
There’s plenty of American oil propaganda too. Oil companies around the world have an interest in encouraging people to treat gasoline consumption as part of their cultural identity.
“The Republican is like, ‘They’re trying to ban gas cars — I’m not going to buy a Biden-mobile,’” said Mike Murphy, a former Republican strategist who runs the nonprofit EV Politics Project, which attempts to counter misinformation on electric cars and encourage conservatives to adopt the vehicles.
Wow, I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you. If “gullibility” was a person, they’d vote for Republicans.
Add comment