Sure, but you’re not going to walk in and just say “I’ll take it for $60k” and drive off with it. As somebody who is shopping for a car right now let me tell you, those days are gone.

 

Sure, the carbon credit market is problematic, (and hypocritical to say the least) but in my opinion, EV'S would eventually dominate the market anyway, it may have just taken longer. BEV'S are better technology, drive better, and are so much more efficient. Even with some of their shortcomings like range, I would still choose one over it's equivalent ice.

Once prices start coming down and better charging becomes available, you'll start to see people on the fence coming down. Then the curious. In most cases, all it takes is a test drive. I'll bet every penny on that.

Dealership markups not being helpful is an understatement

 

Almost 4000 new 2023 units siting on lots right now. And in transit or being built isn't an excuse for those. They aren't building or transporting new 2023 model anymore.

Personally, I wouldn't touch a new 2023 that has been sitting around on a lot forever. Not sure I would trust that there wasn't a negative impact on the battery.

 

No reason to be concerned about any car sitting, especially an EV. That just says savings to me.

 

You have nothing to worry about unless they are sitting below 0 degrees with extremely low charge (below 10 percent) for months. Even then you have nothing to worry about with an 8 year 120k mile warranty, which starts the day you drive out of the lot. Without that warranty, I would have been reluctant to buy an EV, but with it, I was able to take the plunge

 

sure, i would too, but the hypocrisy is in selling 'dirty fuel' to others to enable virtue-signalling for 'clean transportation' at home. it may make you feel good but you're not really solving the problem.

and norway has about the population of s. carolina while sending vast amounts of gas and oil elsewhere. so their clean efforts mean little globally.

 

I've never been to Cali but always read how electric cars and specifically Teslas are everywhere. With the added cost of fuel in Cali vs other states I just assumed most people in Cali are purchasing EVs lol.

The jump is certainly significant though

 

I'm not an environmentalist, and oil being a natural resource that's valuable, I don't see the issue. With oil and natural gas being 20 percent of their economy, it's obviously an important resource for them.

Has Norway ever claimed that they are trying to solve the world's pollution problems? Educate me

 

If other auto makers had shown foresight and jumped into EVs early as Tesla did, and put in the hard work to reach scale, they would have also also benefited from carbon credits.

BTW, the claim that hydro is "saving trillions" is nonsense here is the cost per energy unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_o...city_by_source

Solar + battery storage is much better.

 

I say this all the time, EV adoption in a big way is a long way off. Most people, including Californians either have misinformation, or are just plain skeptical. They hear horror stories of chargers not working, taking a long time to charge, and people running out of charge etc. Some of the most virulent anti EV people I've talked to are...Californians. Especially Southern Californians.

It's better the adoption is slow and steady, a sudden explosion of EV's on the road, which happened in 2022 can be disastrous. Especially for non Tesla owners who find themselves with lots of issues with sub par Fast charging.

Yes, the Model Y and 3 are the best selling cars in California, but collectively Toyota and other automakers sell more gasoline, hybrid and PHEV than Tesla, or any other EV

 

Toyota has about 16 models, or over 50 if you count the variations on their website. That's just in North America. They are produced in ~30 factories around the world and sold in just about every market. That is a whole lot of momentum.

 

​​​​​​On top of that, had Toyota not killed off the RAV4 EV, (which was very popular here), and continued to develop EV'S, Toyota would be dominating the BEV market. Toyota loyalists would have been eating them up. Being a former one myself, I would state my reputation on it. But hindsight as they say, is 20/20

 

I didn't make any claims regarding hydro, so I can't speak to that.

But no, it wasn't as easy as you state for existing manufacturers to just "jump into EVs" like Tesla did. They still had to provide the ICE cars we needed and were penalized for it. I'm sure they would have rather put those billions they had to pay Tesla to develop EVs into their own EV programs. That is why Tesla is so dominant. The taxpayer subsidized the price of their cars, and other manufacturers subsidized their R&D. 100% of Tesla's focus was on EVs, and they had everybody throwing money at them to do it, including the people they were competing against. Not the case for traditional manufacturers and there was no way it could have been.

 

This is not logical. You're saying it is easier to start from zero, build a brand new company from scratch and reach volume production of EVs. If this was true then all legacy auto had to do was start a new corporation and do the same thing Tesla did, they would have received the same regulatory credits. I know what you're response is going to be legacy can't afford to do that. Yes they can, Toyota has $70 billion cash on hand.

You'll say absolutely anything except give Tesla credit.

To this specifically
Actual reason is Elon Musk, having a CEO that is also brilliant engineer makes all the difference. See Nvidia as another example.

 

Even though they're losing a massive amount on each one? Ford loses $36,000 on every EV.

Maybe not 60k OTD but I'm pretty confident a consumer armed with the right information and who can negotiate could easily lop a huge amount off of a Lightning.