The Case for Luxury EVs Lacks Evidence

My problem with Volt is that it was the wrong type of car. They should have chosen either a family car or a small SUV. May be they would have got lower EV range, but that is ok - compared to compromises in space (no fifth seat !).

Looks like we're all going to have to wait a bit longer.. Manufacturers don't seem to be taking much of a chance here. That Infinity LE is just a bit different from a Leaf.

Mr. Musk's Model X seems to be the exception, seeing as it has both capacity, decent traveling distance and (optional) high performance. If the Model X Tesla sells well, there will be copycats from other vendors trying to play catch-up.

As regards Bob Lutz you'd think he'd be pushing and/or marketing his Via vehicles a bit more strenuously. Their WebSite is horrible. Plain Jane as can be with almost no information, just plain wrong information, and even less pricing.

Now, I realize they are currently aiming at fleet purchases, but it never hurts to wet the appetite of an awaiting public. A different marketing team there would be pushing Via Escalades, and Pickups, Manly supercab trucks and Vacation ready MicroBuses (vans) as VW did back in the '60s'

In this case we really need to separate the EREV from the pure EV. The markets are very different, but not necessarily the buyers.

Both EVs and EREVs have a big limit on their buyers, in that the buyers are almost always going to be a home owner. If California is a good sample for the rest of the US, only 4% of EV/EREV buyers live in apartments, condos or mobile homes. Home ownership is about 67% in the US. To add to the problem two big EV/EREV states are California and New York which have lower home ownership rates at around 55%. The ownership problem is offset somewhat by the fact that home owners tend to be higher earners. In California only 21% of buyers make under $100,000/year. So just the housing problem cuts a third from the potential buyers for both EVs and EREVs.

The EV market has another limit, in that an EV makes for a poor only car (I know some of you make due, but not very many). The only figure I could find for home ownership with a single adult was old and it was 43%. So knock at least another 20% off the potential market for pure EVs. And then cut that in half, because only one of the cars will be a pure EV.

So looking at EVs, the market is at a maximum 25% of the total new car market. That is a big hole to start in. So for now the EV manufactures are looking at innovators and early adopters who own a home and will own at least two cars. That gets you down to about 4% of the population. So assuming that only half of the population can afford a medium priced car, that leaves the target buying population at 2%. So the manufactures have to figure out how to get that 2% of the population to buy their EVs.

The EREVs have a bit better time, in that a EREV can be an only car. That leaves their market at about 5% of the total new car market. The 5% has a complete overlap with the 2% of the EV market.

So looking at the market, with my caps in place, the plug in market is not doing to badly. About one in ten potential buyers are becoming a real customer.

So would changing the vehicle mix up the sales? We will see. The Mitsubishi plug in is coming soon. The Honda Accord and Ford Fusion plug ins are starting to sell. This adds a much wider range to the plug in market. Still not work truck from a major manufacture.

The main reason GM decided to produce the Cadillac ELR before producing a plug in CUV is cost. The ELR was easy because it's the same platform as the Volt. This should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about automobiles.

@CharlesF – “Both EVs and EREVs have a big limit on their buyers, in that the buyers are almost always going to be a home owner.” I never thought it would happen but I believe you have convinced me of the need for large public subsidies for Level 2 charging station installations – in apartment and condo building parking lots. Without ‘home’ charging stations EVs / EREVs are never going to take off.

Another truth – “an EV makes for a poor only car”. (Is there even a big-battery Tesla driver out there for whom the Tesla is an only car? I doubt it.) In theory I think it could be. But prospective owners should take a serious look at their driving requirements – not just range but the climate and topography of the drive. For many the capabilities of existing EVs would be sufficient for most of their needs. If there were convenient, cost-effective alternatives for the rest, this need not be an issue.

That ‘serious look’ might be difficult, given all the misinformation being disseminated by EV partisans and vendors. Until big-battery Tesla-like cars come down in price to a level affordable for the rest of us (and assuming they can safely be quick-charged- which apparently they can), EVs will not be long distance cars. Someone said the reason a LEAF can’t be repeatedly quick-charged is that Nissan undersized its battery. I would like to know how many other EV vendors ‘undersized’ in order to keep their products affordable. Until this happens, filling the wide-open spaces with Level 2 & 3 chargers isn’t going to accomplish much (except waste the public’s money).

It all comes down to money. My guess is that a lot more people would like to be ‘green’ – so long as it isn’t inordinately expensive. While it remains so, cars like Teslas, Fiskers or the Caddies Lusk apparently envisions, EVs will be seen by those who can’t afford them as playthings of the rich, a sort of ‘conspicuous consumption’ with moral window dressing. For this to change, governments are going to have to take a serious look at the externalities, the costs, involved in continuing support for driving ICE-powered cars. At the very least, they need to terminate policies like paying for oil wars, tax breaks and low-cost leases of public domain oil reserves that create an un-level playing field.

I find it hard to believe that electric utilities couldn’t make a lot of money from EVs if they were a little hungrier. Has anyone ever looked at the economics of those utilities buying the EV batteries in exchange for vehicle to grid and salvage rights? Even if this was a wash or caused a slight loss, could the profit from a greatly expanded market make up the difference?

@Deckard,

Cruze is a 5 seater and Volt is 4-seater. Volt lost the mid rear seat due to battery.

Justin H,

GM's next generation of small CUVs will be built on the same platform as the Cruze and Volt. It make sense this will be when a production version of the MPV5 will arrive. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/08/gms-next-gen-d2-platform-to-support-...

@World2Steven

Remember years ago when so many were saying EV's were going to "Overload the Grid"? No body is saying that these days and rightly so.

Going from old refrigerators to energy star things and replacing incandescents with CFL's is saving much more juice than the typical home EV will use.

It looks to me as though with widespread adoption of Ev's there will be no infrastructure change AT ALL. Of course, some people put in solarcells and windmills, lessening the requirement further.

Now Obama in the SOTU says he wants more carbon taxes for us and to use half the energy we do now (of course, Mexico, India, and China can use as much as they want, as the Deindustrialization of the US continues).

Utilities so far have said they really don't want anything to do with V2G.

People in general are getting more up in arms about ZIGBEE, including the UPROAR in Naperville, Illinois where people are upset about being arrested by cops for refusing smart meters....