Electric vehicle sales dropped to 82,000 in February, pulling down the 3-month average to 96,000. Plug-in hybrid sales rose to 28,000 units.
39 thoughts on “Raw data: Unit sales of electric vehicles”
Comments are closed.
Cats, charts, and politics
Cats, charts, and politics
Electric vehicle sales dropped to 82,000 in February, pulling down the 3-month average to 96,000. Plug-in hybrid sales rose to 28,000 units.
Comments are closed.
Whose gamble is going to sink the company -- Toyota's PHEVs and FCEVs with its target 100% ZEV by 2050, or all the manufacturers pledging to go 100% ZEV by 2030 with BEVs?
Sidenote: What will the climate be like, in 2050? I think a lot worse (greater variability, higher intensity heat, longer droughts, converging adverse weather events) than 2025.
Thankfully, most of the people making pollution and energy related decisions today will all be dead by 2050, so they don’t have to factor any of the negative things you’ve brought up at all. We live in the era of I’ve Got Mine FU + Nothing Matters Unless It Happens To Me.
Is there any data on regular hybrids? I bring this up because Toyota is starting to sell the Camry only as a hybrid. Since the Camry has a lot of sales Toyota must believe the number of sales will not drop disastrously and will recover after a year or two. My guess is that sales of regular hybrids are expanding at a greater rate than EVs or plug-ins. That's great for a manufacturers CAFE rating but it's too bad the hybrid switchover didn't take place earlier,
My wife's Camry is from 2017, and is the newest vehicle in our household. We looked at the Camry hybrid at the time, and she felt the loss of trunk space plus the additional up-front cost together were not worth it.
As battery costs drop, the difference between a straight internal-combustion vehicle, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid are going to drop, and I think more people will choose plug-in hybrids. Maybe all of our cars will last long enough that the infrastructure will be in place to make the switch to battery-electric easier.
I have read several articles advocating putting more emphasis on hybrids as a way to transition to fully electric. The problems with EVs, — especially for those who don’t live in cities with a lot of charging places, those who frequently drive long distances or those who live in cold climates — has led to increased demand for hybrids, both plug in and regular.
Plug in hybrids are more expensive and have more reliability issues. Presumably those problems will ease as more are produced but for many people they are a dealbreaker.
None of the things you listed are real problems for BEVs vs hybrids.
- Charging infrastructure is mostly along freeways - not cities. Tesla already has access to the most chargers, now they're allowing Ford and Rivian (and soon everyone else) to share their network, along with the CCS chargers that are out there.
- The vast majority of charging is done at home. Like, some BEVs never charge elsewhere, especially as they grow in range.
- And BEVs are fine in cold climates. They lose range because they have to make heat instead of having surplus like an internal combustion engine... but they have different advantages like if there's traffic or they have to sit around idling they actually last longer than a conventional engine.
They aren't as good for say, towing which uses alot of powe), or rural routes where there isn't charging. Or for apartment dwellers and people who don't have their own parking spaces and can't charge at home; although that's changing as well.
Hybrids come with all the complexities and maintenance costs of an engine, and all the problems above of a BEV. So they're fitting into a smaller and smaller niche.
I believe there is a widespread effort to discredit EVs that has been accepted by the Biden administration to placate the UAW and other big donors (e.g. Toyota). Pure speculation of course, but the number of 'news' stories about EVs not measuring up seems like someone is feeding information to the stenographers in the national news media.
I have resigned myself to the belief that we will be paying industries to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in geologic reservoirs. Likely this will be some offshoot of the oil and gas industries.
This sounds correct. EV+PHEV sales are growing and someone really wants to change that narrative through a coordinated media push.
Except Biden hasn't accept any of the BS by the UAW. That's also FUD.
LOL! Look out! Unions gonna get ya! Hey everyone, the reason everyone isn't driving electric cars is because of unions. That's right. It isn't because of the laughable amounts of money fossil fuel companies give to think tanks and politicians. It isn't because of the third of the country that has decided that their very identity is about denying global warming. No. It is because of unions.
It is amazing when you go through the comment section you can find people like this. They see other people state something and then give reasons why they believe it. So they think that is all there is to reasoning. You state something, then give a reason. The part about using logic and judging which facts are relevant is completely alien to them. Anything they state is true because they can follow it with some kind of reason. Any kind of reason. The idea that the reason you give has to actually prove your statement completely escapes them.
I would say Elon Musk sent this industry off in a direction that was a bit of a sugar high... very exciting for a few years as a lot of non-electric types discovered that electric cars are very fast... but in the end his obsession with speed stats and how much speed and range he could pump was and is a bit unsustainable.
The reason being, if you sell the car based on 300 miles of range, then you need a huge battery to support that range, and huge batteries are heavy. Thus the cars are big and heavy.
Some companies like Mazda came out with cars with a more reasonable and practical 100 mile range but they couldn't compete with Elon's boasting, but it makes sense that's where things will settle back into (100 mile range, I mean, which of course, makes a lot of sense if the charging network is extensive and reliable).
In other words, if electric car sales are moving down, it could be it's just the inevitable realignment of the industry away from the Elon influence.
100 mile range may be ok for a commuter car, but taking it for any longer trip is entirely impractical. At 65 mph, you would be looking for a charging station every 1 1/4 hour, since you would be out of power about 17 minutes later (assuming you are not also using any heat, a/c, or playing the radio).
Got any stats on how many car miles are commuter miles vs long trip miles
An imperfect starting point would be Table 1 at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/california-public-road-data/prd-2019-a11y.pdf
That said, 100 miles is still a bit tight. My bit of anecdata is I waited until the Bolt came around because that and its > 200 mile range would allow me to take "day trips" between the South Bay and San Francisco or Monterrey with zero range anxiety and not necessarily having to charge immediately when I got home.
Or finding packing with charging at the destination - which is getting better, but still not enough for 100-mile cars to work as much as they could.
My Zero does nearly 90 miles on a good day in the city, but if I go to San Jose via the freeway, I need to charge to get back. It's no biggie if I go somewhere there's a charger, but that's not everywhere yet.
If a person needed an inexpensive vehicle for just getting to work and back, and/or tooling around town, then 100 mile range may be OK. I could not use such vehicle to visit my relatives in NJ, or could use it to get to and from my home, about 1 hour north of NYC, to see a play on Broadway, or a quick trip to the Bronx Zoo, which is just under 80 miles round trip and is theoretically in range (unless I needed to use heat, a/c, radio, lights, or the manufacture was optimistic in range.)
For me, 300+ miles is going to be a threshold range for considering an EV. I expect the battery could get smaller in the future if battery/motor efficiency improves. Selling vehicles that don't have "ludicrous" acceleration capability should also help.
I believe there are legit worries about charging range right now, though some of those worries are overstated and just an excuse for some people not to buy an electric which would actually be useful and save them money.
What would help is more truth from car companies. Everyone exaggerates the range, and maybe Tesla more than others.
My max charge is about 12% fewer miles than the max charge when I bought the car. After 4 years, that's not really too bad.
But the word "mile" is really an exaggerated marketing term that amounts to a fiction. One recent example: The car's display said I had 92 miles of charge left while on the nav system it said I was 80 miles from home. You might think I had a few miles to spare. But when I selected home as my destination, it told me my battery would be at -6% by the time I arrived so I needed to stop for a charge on the way home. IOW, the car knew I really didn't have the 92 miles left that it showed on the display. Since the car really does know how to calculate an accurate estimate for range, I would much rather it told me the truth than tell me a white lie. I'm used to it now. It's almost amusing. But it pisses off new owners and I can't blame them for being upset.
No, Tesla doesn't exaggerate the range.
Nor do other car companies. They use the EPA standards.
The EPA standard is designed to compare cars across a wide range of uses - but what it doesn't consider is highway range.
EVs are super-efficient. So instead of having wasted energy (like in an internal combustion engine) that can be applied to counter air resistance at highways speed, that energy has to come from somewhere.
So EVs will have a shorter highway range (which is at a higher average speed) than their EPA range (which is at a lower speed).
The most recent drive-to-failure EV truck test by Out of Spec Reviews found the Tesla Cybertruck came closest at highway range vs their EPA cycle range.
Musk should find some new industry he can disrupt, like prostitution which has been stuck in the same old rut for millennia.
That's not how range works, unfortunately.
The faster you go, the shorter your range. At 65, my Zero can go 40 miles, but if I stay below 30 I can go twice as far.
The industry needed an all-electric company like Tesla to kick its ass. Relying on ICE carmakers to convert to EVs without the fear of a near-death experience would never have happened. The conversion curve would be 5 to 10 years behind where we are right now.
I'm not a fan of hybrids, though I understand why people would rather buy one now. Ultimately, we need to get gas vehicles off the road, and the sooner the better.
My two cents on what's needed right now:
1. Massive build-out of charging infrastructure (can't rely on the whiny babies running car companies to do it)
2. A new CEO at Tesla (a smart, nontoxic exec focused on EVs could do wonders, and that's not Musk, who has outlived his usefulness)
Mazda's offering isn't a good car, no matter the power supply. I say this and I drive a Mazda 3, which is just flat better than the MX-30.
We just bought a Honda Accord hybrid and my husband thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Gas consumption has dropped considerably and the safety features are amazing. Why anyone buying a new car isn't buying at least hybrid is beyond my comprehension.
I believe the drop is influenced by the cheapest Tesla losing it's tax credit. My own story is that in the fall (of 2023) I was looking for an electric that could comfortably do 200 miles on a full charge.
Dealers showed no interest in selling electrics. I wanted the Chevy Bolt EUV, and both dealers in town wanted an additional $7000 just because they said they could charge it, and the dealer in a nearby city who didn't mark up had a six month wait. That markup made the Tesla Model 3 cheaper! So I got the Model 3 before it lost its tax credit. If dealers are still playing that game no wonder folks are holding off purchasing electric.
Btw the whole "they're heavy" issue is a red herring...my car's curb weight (3800) is equal to or less than most of the ICE cars I see around town (Subarus 3600-3900), not to mention the trucks like ICE F-150s (4700). The average weight in the US for 2022 was 4000.
They are heavier than comparable ICE cars, but the big issue with electric cars is that they go from 0 to 60 in like 3 seconds. That leads to two problems. First, it kills tires fast. Second, people are not used to that fast of an acceleration and get into more accidents, mainly fender benders. But now fenders have all the high tech stuff for "self driving", so cost a lot more now to repair. Car companies could fix that, maybe with just feedback on the pedal, so you don't go to max acceleration unless you really stomp on the gas (so to speak).
I spun-out perhaps three times unintentionally when I first started driving the Bolt in my family. While it can go from 0 to 60 in less time than any other car I've owned it doesn't mean it must go from 0 to 60 in that time. Any fault there lies not in the car, but in the driver. Aka PEBSSW - Problem Exists Between Seat and Steering Wheel...
"Second, people ... get into more accidents, mainly fender benders..."
Is there data supporting that? I'm not sure if that's real or urban myth.
The big adjustment for most new EV drivers in regenerative braking, which decelerates the car fast when you step off the "gas pedal." One advantage there is that is saves use of the brakes, which can last 100,000+ miles. Adjusting to regenerative braking is quick and easy.
The faster acceleration with electrics is something people will love when they convert. No one will want to go back to the putt-putt-putt of ICEs.
This isn't that true. They're up to a thousand pounds (the battery) heavier, sure...
But internal combustion engine powered cars are in general fat and inefficient, and their tank of gas and oil aren't included in their curb weight. On average they weigh at most 30% less than a comparable EV, usually alot less.
A quart of oil weighs less than two pounds. Five gallons of oil would be perhaps 9 pounds, but call it ten.
A gallon of gasoline weighs somewhere between 6 and 7 pounds. Even a 20 gallon tank would be less than 140 pounds.
Gas and oil are a negligible fraction of an ICE vehicle's weight.
Grr, five quarts of oil. I was already thinking about the gasoline as I wrote that...
Slightly OT: Fisker's Ocean EVs are all heavily discounted with the lowest-priced Ocean Sport now $25K in the US (of existing inventory). Will they be around, though? And can you live with the not-so-good quality of software?
...and no replacement parts?
Still, it's availability and price holding back EVs, not demand.
Interesting that PHEVs are increasing while BEVs are dropping. I imagine the flurry of online negative stories (I wonder where those are coming from?) have something to do with it. I always thought 'range anxiety' was overstated compared to 'charging time anxiety' which is the real issue.
PHEVs are actually a great solution for almost everyone because you can do most daily driving on battery but have no worry at all about range *or* charging time. My 2015 Ford C-Max PHEV has almost 600 miles range with a full battery and full tank, and in cold weather I don't have to run down the battery to get some heat. Overall, about 80% of my miles are on battery and when I run in hybrid mode, I get ~40 mpg. I can charge up in my garage for $0.12/kWh, which is about 1/3 the cost of gas.
But I guess a lot of people are still puzzled about what exactly a PHEV is -- it seems complicated unless you're a motorhead. Glad to see the concept is starting to break through.
This is why we went PHEV a few months back. Just quick errands around town run on the battery which we can recharge at night. We're two months in and still have 2/3 of tank of gas from the dealer fillup.
I have owned a plug in hybrid for about a year and a half. It has about a 20 mile electric range and 300+ gas range. I will never own a different type of car, so long as charging is still a 1+ hour ordeal and gas is available. On days when I'm only commuting to work (only 4 miles one way for me), I use zero gas. I can also take it on family road trips, however, and get nice mileage on highways. It is truly the best of both worlds, and I'm not surprised that plug in hybrid vehicles are continuing to gain market share at a steady rate even if EVs are slightly faltering.
The issue with plug in hybrids is that on battery power you are hauling around an engine and a gas tank while in iC mode you are hauling around a battery and an electric motor. We liked our plug in hybrid, but found it lacked space compared to a normal hybrid or an EV. I do get tired of headlines “Which are Better, EV’s or Plug in Hybrids?”. It all depends. If you have at home charging and rarely drive over 200 miles, EV’s are a clear choice. If you do frequent long trips, a plug in hybrid is probably more appropriate.
That's our basic strategy. We have a Nissan Leaf+ that actually gets a good 15-20% over the EPA range rating (209 miles). We can get a bit more with "ECO" mode. Almost all our charging is at home. When we go to Seattle for a long weekend our regular in-town hotel has L2 charging. For longer work, our 2011 Prius is still getting really good mileage. We're strongly considering a Prius Prime if we need a replacement - mainly to get upgraded safety and assist features. Being able to do modest errands in full battery mode is a plus
EVs that have access to NACS as well as CCS aren't going to have any trouble with long range trips.
So even that 'common wisdom' is wrong.
We have a PHEV Prius Prime and love it. I buy a tank of gas a year. We mostly take short trips but if we have to go farther we just go without thinking about it.