TCO is even better for electric. Near zero maintenance. The depreciation is real, but only if you plan to sell it at it's half life. If you plan to hold it a long time, depreciation evens out.

My EV is ten years old and cost $30k. It's paid for itself twice over in just gas. More if I factor in the zero maintenance (not totally zero. I changed the tires a few times and had to replace a trunk component). The resale on it is about $8k lower than an equivalent ICE. But for me, the EV was a good deal.

I'd definitely recommend getting a used one though. I bought mine new, and that makes the numbers worse.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The depreciation is real

It’s not though, or it is currently. It wasn’t too many years ago that teslas kept their value more than any other car. I’d argue this is a temporary market condition that is only valid for decisions now but is not predictably valid

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I lean the other way. I think Tesla valuation was artificially hyped and manipulated. The car's valuation was luxury priced and tied to Elons personality. And that tanked. So I personally don't think that was normal or ever coming back.

I think the current conditions are also abnormal, with EV becoming political and a horse running amok in the white house.

The normal depreciation is probably in the middle. But when are things ever normal anymore?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah normal seems to have taken a vacation

In either case it’s all tied to supply and demand. When teslas kept their value it was because huge growth they couldn’t keep up with. Now their value used is horrible but a big part of that is demand dropped, so they can make too many.

And yes it is not a good thing that in both cases too much was driven by a personality.

Personally I’m annoyed because teslas still are the most compelling EV available to me, but they always had the shadow of over-hype and now they’re toxic

[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In practical terms, maintenance used to be a bottleneck. Didn’t know if it still is. If you always need to go to Tesla for maintenance, it’s going to get ridiculously expensive.

And then there’s the philosophical side. Who wants to drive a car associated with filth like Elon.

Other than that, getting a used Tesla could be nice.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

I’m pretty sure maintenance still is a bottleneck. I did have to get warranty work done and the wait was significantly longer than I’ve waited for warranty work on traditional cars. I haven’t read much about it in the last year or though, so who knows.

But do you even have to goto Tesla? Certainly the drivetrain and any software is highly proprietary but it also rarely needs attention. The shop I use for inspections claims they can do wear items like tires, brakes, suspension

Body work on the other hand is probably a nightmare. Actually it’s a nightmare for traditional vehicles and can only be longer for Tesla based on lack of parts inventory

[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The way I see it, rich people can buy new cars. Everyone else who needs one should consider buying a used one instead. After a few years, depreciation isn't quite so rapid any more, which makes TCO less of a burden.

Maintenance expenses do increase as the car ages, but as long as it isn't like 25 years old, it's not completely absurd. Currently, I'm looking to buy something that is about 5 years old, and then sell it when it begins to require frequent maintenance. That way, I should be able to avoid the two expensive extremes.

However, there's another nasty twist. Cold environment will murder the NMC cells in no time. Not too long ago, I had to leave my car in a cold parking lot for a long time, and when I got back it was about -30 °C. Fortunately, I don't need to abuse the engine this way any more than maybe twice every year. Oh, boy did it sound unhappy with that cold start, but it managed it anyway. If I had an EV, I would probably need to leave it at home, and take a bus for horribly timed trips like that.

Let's say, about 6 times a year, I'll have badly timed trips, with temperatures hovering around +5...-15 °C: That isn't a complete disaster for EVs, but it's still very bad for the cells. Some cars have a built-in heating system for the battery, so I guess that feature would see frequent use. When I'm eventually buying a use EV, having a battery heating system is going to be a completely non-negotiable feature.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

temperatures hovering around +5…-15 °C

We’ve just come off a cold streak like this and I have to say it was no big deal.

Obviously I don’t know of there are long term effects on the battery but

most/all EVs have active thermal management now so will maintain a healthy temperate while in use
my decision point on technology maturity was when they started using heat pumps rather than resistive heat. That’s still too rare but makes a huge impact on cold weather range

[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 1 points 20 hours ago

The only good things about NMC cells is the energy density and the ability to pull a decent power during acceleration.

When it comes to temporaries, they are surprisingly picky. Too hot or cold, and they wear out quickly. If you push beyond that, you’ll lose range instantly. That’s why a heat pump is such a great thing to have.

Also, the state of charge matters to longevity. If you use the wrong percentages frequently, you’ll start losing capacity sooner or later. Even if you treat the battery perfectly, it’s still going to wear out like the tires do, but this thing costs as much as an engine.

I’m really looking forward to seeing all the other battery chemistries take their share of the market.