It’s Thursday and I’m tempted to lead with another story about Tesla reportedly walking away from its gigacasting plans. Am I tired of Tesla TMDs? A little, so instead lemme reiterate that hybrids continue to be way more affordable than electric cars and this is driving the market.
Is that reflected in the numbers? It is if you’re Toyota, which saw another strong April in spite of having one fewer selling day. And then I’ll talk about Tesla’s gigacasting thing, because it speaks to larger plans by the automaker that seem sort of mystifying.
Finally, I’ll end by talking about the Ford Maverick. We all love the Maverick. You know who also loves the Maverick? Ford. Ford loves the Maverick so much that it’s constantly bringing the Maverick back to dealerships. Some would call this “an annoying and disappointing preponderance of recalls” but some… might call it love.
Hybrids Are Popular Because Hybrids Make Sense And Are Cheap
Ok, so the Year of the Hybrid has happened, and I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t continue to be so for the last seven months of the year.
But why?
I think there are three key reasons:
- Consumer Preference: I think anti-environmentalism will continue to wane as people see the very real consequences of climate change. This doesn’t mean consumers will all buy EVs immediately as hybrids offer a reasonable transition for people who are unsure about electric cars/charging.
- Choice: More automakers are offering more hybrids on more models. The number of hybrid models is growing every year, giving buyers more choice. And then there are places where there is no choice. For instance, the 2025 Toyota Camry is only available as a hybrid, joining the Sienna in that category.
- Affordability: Hybrids use less fuel, which immediately makes them more affordable to operate than their gas-powered counterparts. They’re also way, way cheaper than electric cars.
Let’s dive into that last bit, courtesy of this Barrons article.
According to Cars.com, hybrids and plug-in hybrid vehicles, or PHEVs, average $48,918, while the average price for an all-battery electric vehicle is $63,802. That’s a difference of $14,884. The lack of affordability continues to weigh heavily on EV sales growth.
And weigh it has. Sales of battery electric vehicles, or BEVs, grew just 7% year over year in the first quarter of 2024, according to data provider WardsAuto, down from 43% year-over-year growth in the fourth quarter of 2023. Sales of hybrids—both traditional and plug-in—grew about 65% year over year.
It’s basically $15k cheaper to get a hybrid than a BEV, though it depends a lot on what you’re looking to buy. This is especially true as incentives for EVs are extremely high right now, with Toyota giving few discounts on RAV4 Hybrids but plenty of deals on the bZ4x EV.
The best deals right now in the market seem to be on electric car leases as automakers are discounting cars plus taking advantage of the $7,500 tax credit. If you can make an EV work in your life and want something new, an EV lease is likely the most affordable option.
Seriously, here’s a lease deal on a bZ4X for $1,999 down and $160 a month. That specific deal is expired, but I’ve been seeing tons of similar deals pop up on Twitter.
Toyota Has Another Banger Month
Toyota, a seller of many hybrids is, unsurprisingly, having a great month. According to Automotive News, Toyota saw a 13.7% lift in sales in April of 2024 compared to April 2023, putting it at about 18.5% year-over-year thus far.
Those are good numbers and far out-pacing the expected -2% decline for the market as a whole. How’s the company doing it? From AN:
Toyota Motor Corp., behind another surge in hybrid deliveries, posted a double-digit increase in U.S. sales in April for the sixth straight month while Honda Motor Co. volume edged up 0.4 percent — with both automakers benefiting from rising inventories.
Volume rose 14 percent to 211,818, with electrified vehicle sales jumping 56 percent to 77,228, Toyota Motor said Wednesday. Sales increased 15 percent at the Toyota division and 4.8 percent at Lexus.
Curiously, the Prius was down 33% year-over-year, but RAV4 and Corolla sales more than made up for it. Camry and Tacoma sales were both down, but those cars are being swapped out for entirely new models so that’s not a big surprise.
Honda is a bit of a question mark. The automaker posted a slight increase for the month, but “electrified vehicles” sales were down. For Honda, this means mostly hybrids as the Prologue is only just available to be ordered. Hybrid sales are up for the year, but there was a slip, primarily in Accord sales. Is this a supply issue? I’ve reached out to Honda to explain.
UPDATE:Â Here’s the skinny straight from Honda:
Accord sales were down overall in April, but it was expected and not an indicator of supply chain issues or demand waning. We have begun retooling our production facilities in Ohio to establish our new EV Hub. As part of that, the Marysville Auto Plant (MAP), where all U.S. market Accords are currently built, recently consolidated its two production lines to one as we prepare for the start of EV production in late 2025.In the coming months, we plan to increase production of the Accord hybrid, so we expect availability to improve and for sales of the Accord hybrid and CR-V hybrid to continue to represent about half of the sales mix for each model. Its important to note, that Accord hybrid mix of sales remained above 50% in April, indicating demand remains strong for our electrified models.Furthermore, we will be launching a Civic hybrid in the coming months, so we remain committed to production and sales of hybrid-electric models
Reuters: Tesla Walking Back Gigacasting Plans
I’ve already covered how Tesla made gigacasting the most important word in the car industry, but just because everyone is excited about it doesn’t mean that Tesla can’t change its mind about the technology. As we’re learning, Tesla loves changing its mind.
It’s how we end up with this Reuters headline: “Exclusive: Tesla retreats from next-generation ‘gigacasting’ manufacturing process”
So what’s happening, exactly?
Last year, as Tesla developed a new small-vehicle platform, it aimed to punch out the underbody in a single piece, Reuters exclusively reported last September, citing five sources familiar with the automaker’s gigacasting operations. The long-term goal was to radically simplify manufacturing and slash costs.
But Tesla has since halted the effort, opting to stick with its more proven method of casting vehicle underbodies in three pieces: two gigacasted front and rear sections and a midsection made of aluminum and steel frames to store batteries, according to the two sources familiar with the matter. That is largely the same three-piece method the company has used for its last two new models, the Model Y crossover SUV and the Cybertruck pickup.
Why this is happening is somewhat a matter of speculation, but this is consistent with Tesla deciding not to do a $25,000 high-volume, low-cost EV and instead focus on AI/robotaxi development. Making the underbody with one big cast could potentially save a ton of money, but the cost of creating that kind of setup is huge and Tesla is trying to save money.
Gigasting is hard! It also probably doesn’t help that GM bought one of Tesla’s gigacasting suppliers.
Besides, if the underlying tech makes the new entry-level car so much more valuable, the theory might go, it’s worth paying a little extra for it and thus trying to remove cost isn’t as big of a deal. I think this is a wrong-headed approach, but that seems to be the plan.
WTF Ford Maverick?
We are Ford Maverick stans around here and, if I could go back in time, I’d have ordered a Maverick XLT on Day 1 when they were still super cheap and gotten it just in time to trade in my Subaru for way over its usual value due to the supply crunch. I didn’t do that, but I still want a normally-priced Maverick.
I’d have probably been a little peeved at this point, however, that the truck might have been recalled seven times already. Ford is in the process of fixing its quality issues, but that does little good for Maverick owners, who have seen more recalls than Guy Pearce in Memento.
So far the recalls have ranged from serious (fire risk due to engine failure) to piddlier (inoperative trailer taillights). If I’m counting correctly, more than half of the recalls are related to taillights, turn signals, or instrument panels.
Here’s the latest one, via NHTSA:
The Body Control Module (BCM) may falsely detect a current overload on one
or both of the rear position lamp circuits, resulting in one or both of the lamps
to be deactivated during a drive cycle. This issue does not affect headlights,
stop lamps (including Center High Mount Stop Lamp), or turn signal functions.
Losing taillights is not good! There’s an easy software fix to this and owners will be notified, possibly while they’re in line to get another recall fixed.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
A two-fer? Sure. Mechjaz was happy to see Gorillaz in yesterday’s TMD and mentioned that the album “Demon Days” is an all-timer. It is! How does one even pick a song on this album? “Feel Good Inc” is the obvious one, as is “Dirty Harry” but I’m a sucker for MF Doom in “November Has Come.”
She wore a filled-in thongA billabongAnd said, nah, fo’reallaThe Villain on a Gorilla jawn?
So good.
The Big Question
Why did Honda hybrid sales drop in April? Honda should get back to me, but I’d love to hear a theory. I’ll update the post when they all wake up and tell me.
It maybe $14,884 cheaper, unless you’re elderly and drive at most <10 miles a month to the grocery store, maybe a few miles more if you’re seeing your cancer specialist weekly.
Short drives are assassins to hybrids since the engines try to shut themselves off every chance they can. There is at least an effort to keep engines running for a few minutes when first started to bring it to operating temp, but the condensation in the engine by the end of the typical elderly person drive cycle is far too short to completely eliminate it.
More frequent oil changes are needed. Typically it’s harder for elderly folks to wrench, even if they were doing oil changes well into their 60s. A combination of older health, weak and brittle bones, makes this value proposition somewhat more sour than usual.
That said, hybrids are great for folks living an active lifestyle.
I know this is beating a dead horse…
PHEV’s and HEV’s have more stuff in them. As in, both an electric drive train, and an ICE one. YET, they are CHEAPER??? By THAAAT much?????
This makes absolutely no sense. While, I am coming around to hybrids, I still don’t want one for the simple reason of two complete drive trains.
With that said, the fundamental difference, IMHO, is only the battery.
And PHEV/HEV’s are wining the race!!!! Makes no sense at all.
Most people don’t think about complexity. They open the hood and say, “Yep, it’s got one of those.”
If people thought about the long-term ramification of their car purchase, no one would buy Stellantis products, anything Italian (except Ferrari/Lambo), or used German cars (except Porsche).
So $10k battery? News to most buyers.
Size matters, I guess.
The thing is, batteries are extremely expensive and extremely heavy, as are development costs for a brand new type of vehicle (if it is pure EV). Those things combine to make EVs very pricey when new. A PHEV is usually just a regular old ICE vehicle with some batteries crammed in, along with an electric motor and some software. The batteries are much smaller and sometimes older tech versus an EV, thus the cost delta.
Yeah, I agree. Makes sense, but doesn’t make sense.
ICE is generally cheap to make and the low stress, non-performance ones often found in hybrids even more so, likely hardly into the 4-figures per car (about 20 years ago, a typical small engine was in the hundreds of dollars per vehicle, so inflation, some newer tech . . .). A hybrid battery is a small fraction of the size of one in a typical BEV, which is not only much cheaper to source and build, but makes packaging easier (cheaper). It really is all in that BEV battery.
It is nothing more or less than a reflection of the type of vehicles being sold in each category.
If all you make is luxury EVs, then ofc it looks like that.
A ~80 KWh Model Y battery currently retails for 7000 dollars. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire EV powertrain cost to Tesla is <5000 dollars. Certainly it is a lot less than 10000 dollars.
The real cost is in development. When GM and Ford spend 1 BILLION dollars on a 10 speed automatic development, they better sell a shitload of 10 speeds to amortize that cost. Same thing here. The relevant ICE development component costs are already amortized, so the trivial raw cost (by comparison) makes EV technology look inherently more expensive, but it just simply isn’t. Engine+transmission+exhaust probably already is cost neutral to EV powertrains when you set aside development amortization.
Yes, all of what you said. I know that’s the answer, but it still doesn’t make sense. I just kinda feel like all hybrid owners have this ticking hand grenade waiting to go off in one of those drivetrains.
This is the right answer. Economy/commuter EVs can be profitable (the LEAF starting turning a profit in 2013). But once automakers saw Tesla selling EVs for Mercedes prices despite happy meal toy build quality, they all hopped on the techno-lux bandwagon and gave up on economy EVs.
When EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids that have similar feature lists or luxury level are compared, the price delta is really quite small. (Seriously, try this with Volvo or BMW.)
But it’s not really that much more complex. In the good hybrids, the electric drive train completely replaces the auto transmission, and is much more simpler/reliable than a regular transmission. as you said, the main difference is the batteries, but that can be mitigated; Prius batteries are long-lived and easily refurbished/replaced.
Hybrids have smaller batteries, batteries are enormously expensive, if not for that, EVs would be drastically cheaper than ICEs across-the-board, because, as you pointed out, they’re otherwise much simpler. The extra cost is pretty much entirely in the battery pack
The alternative for most people is two completely separate cars since the non-Tesla charging infrastructure isn’t there yet for long trips in an EV. At least with a hybrid you’re only duplicating a few things.
Given that you seem to understand the explanations offered. It sounds like it actually does make sense to you, but it is surprising, or counter intuitive. But it does make sense.
I do, I really do. It’s just that I understand it intellectually, not emotionally. My emotions are all out of whack lately.
Sounds like you just need a hug.
Yes. I’ll consider your comment one. Thank you!
Engine fires, airbags, emission controls, turn signals, dash lighting.
These are the five recalls on my Maverick, (’22 XLT Hybrid) so far. There was a sixth, but my car was still in production when that was fixed and I don’t remember what it was for. I have read that there is a tail light recall, but as of yesterday, NHTSA doesn’t show that it affects my car.
Despite the recalls, I still am happy with the purchase, though it helps that I ordered it on day 1 and the dealer gave it to me at MSRP.
Update: Just checked and NHTSA now lists the tail light issue as a recall on my car.
I feel like you should check every day as a Maverick owner.
You’re not wrong. LOL
Friggin’ Ford! They know how to make good cars people like, but it almost seems like they intentionally refuse to get them right.
Demon days is a great album. I bought my copy drunk from a petrol station along with an adult magazine and a sausage roll on the walk home after hearing Dare earlier in the club. I’m not 100 percent sure but I think life might have peaked for me in the mid-noughties.
It was consumed in the normal manner don’t worry!
At some sufficient point, the losses in time and money from scrapping bigger parts is a higher cost than just assembling it together. It looks like Tesla is starting to think that number is 3.
Assembly certainly is very expensive, but so is scrapping an entire car structure due to a casting defect.
Yes, very much this. Very very much this. Plus, the development time on that casting machine is likely SUPER expensive. And scrapping months of parts before getting a good one is expensive.
Or Elon is just bored with building cars.
I have thought about a hybrid for a daily for work but having commutes of 45+ miles one way it strikes out any of the more fun plug in hybrids. So I am either looking for something that is a stick shift like a Miata or a BEV but nothing really looks fun that is affordable besides used Polestar 2. My current daily being either my Cummins or FJ so it would be nice to get better then the 21mpg and 16mpg those get.
Just get an Altima and you’ll be at work in 20 minutes.
You just made me choke on my quesadilla!!! COTW.
Haha – around here I think that would be a Camry without plates.
I’ve noticed the older Camrys are getting like the Altimas, too. I think they’re starting to take over from them as they age out/fall apart from 20 years of abuse.
I have a 60 mile commute and am DD’ing my 4Runner. I’m thinking of getting a commuter too, mainly to keep miles of the 4R, but “fun” is not one of the qualifications. I want a comfy, silent ride. It’s all highway, I don’t need to have fun. Spending 30,40K on a new vehicle just to save fuel makes no sense to me, so I’m thinking a ten-ish year-old Volvo for under 10K could be a good choice. My old P2 XC70 is the most comfortable car I’ve ever owned, I loved DDing it. A XC90 or P3 XC70 is very attractive to me right now. They won’t get much better economy than the 4Runner, but at least they’ll be more comfortable and cruise better at 80, leaving my 4Runner work weekend and offroad stuff. I’ll finally be able to justify a set of mud tires on it, haha.
I did the math, at today’s prices getting 40mpg instead of the 20 I get now saves me about 1900 a year in fuel. If I was doing it strictly for economy, even a 5K Corolla would take a few years to cover, not counting maint, insurance, reg, etc. IMO it rarely makes sense to buy another vehicle strictly for fuel savings.
Yeah I have been looking not just for fuel economy but it is one of the the factors the other is having something I enjoy driving back and forth as my Cummins being a 92 isn’t the most enjoyable experience for a dd and my FJ is more of an off road toy so going through mud tires at current cost of them isn’t fun hah. I also have been looking at volvo’s but have been looking at used electric c40 and xc40’s as the prices on those have plummeted. I have test drove some volvo’s before when looking for for a vehicle for my fiance and they were all very comfortable.
Gotcha, yeah I can see both of those vehicles not being very enjoyable to commute in. The dilemma I have with my 4R is that I’m tired of dailying it, yet I don’t think it’s capable enough to be a dedicated offroad toy. I feel like an XJ or ZJ/WJ grand Cherokee is a much better platform for that. OTOH, I don’t know if I would feel comfortable driving any of those vehicles 4+ hours to the trails. I think an 80 Series LC would be perfect, but the pricing on those…yikes!
An EV commuter would be great, but I have no place to plug it in. I’m a renter in a 140-year-old house, and no chargers anywhere near my work.
I see you mention having a Firebird, what year? I also have a ’00 Formula tucked away in a family member’s garage.
You do realize that if you have 40 mile PHEV you can save almost half your gas, right? Just because you can’t go all the way to work and back doesn’t mean it is not a good deal.
That is true but I think at that point a non plugin hybrid like the new Camry that can get 50mpg might be a better bet as it seems the the plugins cost a bit more then the non plug in’s. But I also have never really owned a practical car for myself my finances Tourx is much more practical then my firebird, Cummins or FJ so knowing me I wont go the practical route hah.
I have your answer since I’m in a similar situation (~50 mi one way commute). Mazda 3 hatch with the 6MT. Fun, comfortable, nice interior. The EPA numbers are low but they severely understate real world mileage on the highway. I can easily get 38mpg on my commute which is near 90% highway at speeds above 70mph.
I was actually telling my dad to get a Mazda 3 with the stick to get as his new daily since he has a Chevy sonic that is falling apart. I might go that route since brand new RF Miata’s are around 40k
Yep you should be able to get the 3 hatch (manual only comes in the Premium trim which is the highest non-turbo trim) for at MSRP or less (~32k msrp).
If you or your dad are looking for a manual commuter that is more of a stripper model, the Civic Hatch in the Sport trim still comes with the bulletproof 2.0L NA K engine. MSRP around 27k. However it’s a typical Honda US lower-end trim. Cloth seats, no blind spot monitoring (!), smaller infotainment, generic sound system, etc.
I think the 3 is the better value personally.
I swear the EPA numbers intentionally hobble manuals as a conspiracy to get rid of them. Every damn manual I’ve had has easily exceeded the highway numbers with a mixed driving cycle around Boston. I can’t recall my GR86 averaging a tank as low as the EPA highway rating even over a tank primarily made up of city traffic and my Focus ST on its outlier worst tank never got as low as the city rating. It averaged about the highway rating of 30 mpg for 180k miles.
I agree there’s something about the test that disadvantages manuals because I can absolutely flog that thing going 80+ over hills and still get the EPA mileage. If I back off at all I crush it
I would just like to say thank you to Matt and the Autopian team for actually writing the Morning Dump. I just tried reading the morning shift over at the jello picnic. Its unreadable to me now. Its huge block quotes with like 4 written lines. Its just bad. So thank you for being better.
What’s that truck by the Ranger there?
Maverick is the name.
Driving to failure who knows where,
Luck is not its champion,
Gambling is its shame.
Truth, it has quality on the run,
Maverick is the name.
Dead as vampire in the sun,
Blowin’ up in canyons.
This is just insane
Recall note bring your hell,
Fare the well new car smell,
Poor luck is the main thing it does the best.
Matchless in bad extremes,
Livin’ on jacks, not streets
Maverick is a legend of car jest
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
Or we could just let the states decide.
It is very likely that our next vehicle will be a hybrid, unless the next one is for my teenager. She’ll get something cheap, so when it gets wrecked, we aren’t out much.
Otherwise, the next vehicle will likely be a CR-V Hybrid, RAV4 Hybrid or a Highlander Hybrid AWD (assuming supply returns to middle America). I’m stoked about the new Camry or Crown wagon, but my wife wants an SUV. PHEV’s are still not plentiful nor affordable in my area.
“Consumer Preference: I think anti-environmentalism will continue to wane…” – Matt Hardigree
Does anti-environmentalism really exist? I know people legitimately disagree about the cause of climate change, but you don’t have to agree that humans cause it to want to reduce pollution. Few people of any political persuasion think it’s okay to throw trash on the ground or dump chemicals in the river, and I would guess that most people like clean air. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that burning less gasoline is a good thing.
I think cost and choice are the biggest drivers of the increased popularity of hybrids. People who are motivated by environmentalism often see hybrids as a half-measure and they opt for BEVs more often these days if their circumstances allow.
For me, it was about the availability of a hybrid version of the vehicle I wanted. If what I want isn’t available in hybrid, I’m still going to get it, but if I can have what I want, pollute a little less, and spend less on fuel, I don’t see a down side.
There are still a small minority of people who claim not to believe the earth is warming. At this point, I imagine most of them are either lying for tribal loyalty or senile. Their opinions are not really worth taking seriously and “anti-environmentalist” is an apt label for them.
There is a much larger group of people who question some or all of the tradeoffs and sacrifices being made in the name of “the climate” whose opinions I think can often be quite valid/worthy of discussion. If these people fall under the “anti-environmentalist” label, I think that is a mistake.
I agree with everything you said there. Everything comes with trade-offs and most people evaluate them in a utilitarian way based on what’s most important to them, but I don’t think there are many people who actively want to destroy the environment.
> Points at the people “rolling coal”
Well, you’ll notice I didn’t use any absolutes. Even so, I think coal rollers are probably more interested in the comment they are making than in the destruction of the environment.
There are definitely people that do.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/nixon-administration-couldve-started-monitoring-co2-levels-but-didnt/
The most salient quote is here, where the subject was a former science advisor to President Nixon, who famously used a handsome Chinese stair car disembarking Air Force One. Emphasis mine:
> While at Exxon, [Edward] David continued to press for more science related to global warming, and in addition to the sampling research, he oversaw a transition to more climate modeling work—some of which was remarkably on target in its projection of temperature increase related to carbon dioxide concentrations. But in a coda to his career, he signed on to a 2012 Wall Street Journal opinion piece in which climate science skeptics argued there was no compelling reason to decarbonize the world’s economy.
Because he stood to make money, in spite of clear global warming patterns he had known for forty years at that point. Lucky for him, he died in 2017, so whatever hell and havoc his actions wrought upon the earth, he was not long to suffer them.
It’s not just that person. It’s that people like that are influential, in policy, in action, in person. The idea that the collective action of individuals could do something so powerfully destructive is dismissed out of hand, it’s impossible, it’s nonsense, and so, in extreme, will do actively harmful things just to prove that.. well, I’m not actually sure what they’re trying to prove. That leaving their 150W halogen bulbs blazing for weeks or months or years on end didn’t single-handedly end the earth? That rolling coal did not immediately result in humanity’s demise? I have met people like this. They exist.
There is no sane “win” condition (i.e., if global warming were real, we’d all be dead by now, or my rolling coal would have x or y or z and it didn’t, etc), and the loss conditions (i.e., the earth did not end right now so all other arguments are moot) are just perversions of the self-annihilating win condition. So, spitefully and nihilistically, there are people that actively and directly contribute to anti-enviromentalism. There is always a scapegoat, a victim to blame for the harm they’ve suffered. They and their perspectives are never wrong, and live that hypocrisy daily.
Arguably that was a person/those are persons who prioritize personal wealth over the environment. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they want the earth to burn, even if it has that effect. I eat meat, and in so doing I contribute to environmental contamination at a much higher level than if I were a vegetarian. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-environmental, it just means that I prioritize my gluttony.
.
I’m told that raising cattle requires much more resources (water, food, etc.) than raising vegetables. I live in a rural area and I can attest that raising cattle does involve a LOT of waste. Despite this, I do enjoy a good ribeye.
I agree with that, and it does hold to your point about people not being actively anti-environmental.
It’s a tricky distinction, though, because virtually no one would identify personally as such, but their actions clearly show that they are exactly that. They might not want the earth to burn, but they also believe that they could not effect that change even if they tried, and so behave anti-environmentally. They’re not anti-environmental, but mercury and lead in wastewater are things that industry should and will self-regulate. CO2 scrubbers are government overreach, imposing needless cost on industry. It’s only one person driving a 6000lb SUV to work in stop and go traffic every day, one person can’t make that kind of impact.
These are still second-degree examples, complicity by abstraction, but they sum to anti-environmentalism. At this point, not actively engaging in some kind of effort to trim excess is anti-environmentalism. It’s not enough to pick up trash on earth day anymore.
First-degree, though. I have watched, with unambiguous certainty, people packed their fast food cups full of trash and drop them in my yard as they drive by. I’ve seen people roll down windows just enough to fit a Bojangles box out. I’ve watched people strip the wrappers from straws and the cellophane from cigarettes and drop it right there. I’ve even been hit by trash on the motorcycle as people throw it out on the freeway.
They’re out there, sadly, and they are very real.
“At this point, not actively engaging in some kind of effort to trim excess is anti-environmentalism.”
I think we can agree to disagree, because while I believe we should all strive to be better, I don’t agree that sitting passively by is anti-environmentalist.
Also, when I was a teenager, I threw things from my car and generally was a real POS. It wasn’t because I was an anti-environmentalist monster, it was because I was rebelling against authority and acting out due to the circumstances I lived in. Yes, it was wrong and it was bad for the environment, but it was not done for the purpose of destroying the environment. Intent matters in my opinion.
Fair enough! I’m not trying to beat the argument into the ground or anyone into submission. That’s just how I view things, and it’s definitely frustrating when I see “adults” pack their trash full of more trash and leave it for “who the fuck cares, it’s not me” to clean up.
Only 49% of Americans believe climate change is both real and manmade. 27% say it’s completely natural, and 7% say it’s a complete hoax. [IPSOS] So over *one third* of the population doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change.
I think you can agree, this is not by accident.
In the 80s, fossil fuel lobbies led a wildly successful congressional denial campaign [Losing Earth]. From the 90s to 2010s, they claimed climate change was not understood, not manmade, not that bad, or not their fault [Oil Ads]. In the late 2010s to early 2020s, they used sockpuppet organizations in “I love my gas stove” campaigns [Climate Town]. Now, they’re pivoting to online astroturfing campaigns that spread fatalism or “doomerism,” convincing people it’s too expensive or too late to stop climate change [GenDread].
We have gotten to the point where over a third of Americans deny anthropogenic climate change and only 54% [PEW] think it’s a high priority because the fossil lobby has poured unfathomable amounts of money and effort into taking legitimate discussion points and warping them into insincere propaganda that upholds fossil profits.
So yeah, it’s not very fair that skeptics get lumped in with deniers, but if you want someone to blame, blame the fossil lobby for spending a lifetime blurring the lines between legitimate skepticism and insincere denial.
Most of the disagreement now I think centers around how much humans are contributing to changes in climate, rather than arguing that we do not contribute. Which I do think is a fair question to ask in the context of the larger changes to our social and financial cultures and endeavors.
Sure, there are still groups of people denying that we have that impact on climate or the Earth. I find that a little asinine as you can maybe argue that the impact is small but there is not a chance we don’t have a big impact with 7 billion people.
The thing is, we will always be debating this. Are we focusing in the right areas or just being politically expedient? Sadly, mostly the latter. Cars are always going to be a focus area. What about those enormous, unregulated shipping carriers?
So, lots to debate but I think most of the reasonable people in the middle of it just want to be good stewards of the resources that we use.
Have been waiting a decade for a decent hybrid minivan like the Sienna and it looks like I’ll have to wait awhile longer for a good deal on one. By that time the kids will probably be out on their own and we won’t need it.
My wife has been using my Mom’s RAV-4 hybrid all winter while she’s away and loves it. She wants one of those instead of the minivan, kids be damned.
I have mixed feeling about the hybrids (due to their complexity and all of that gear) vs a simple BEV but the hybrids work so well. And I’m kinda interested in learning how to wrench on hybrids.
A RAV-4 Prime PHEV would be ideal for us since 90% of our little BS errands could probably be done on battery alone. Or maybe I just get a used cheap BEV to play with and add one more to the fleet mix. So many things to consider…
Interesting stats on sales from WardsAuto because Cox Automotive’s numbers are much less rosy:
Annual EV sales continue to grow in the U.S. market, but the growth rate has slowed notably, said Cox Automotive in an industry report it put out last month. First quarter EV sales increased by 2.6% compared with the year-ago period, but plummeted 15.2% compared with the fourth quarter of 2023. Cox Automotive wrote that the increase in the fourth quarter was well below the previous two years.
Note that the crux of the article I’m linking is basically what Mary Barra intimated a few months back, that GM isn’t really all that interested in making hybrids unless they have to. Also, Caddy still wants to keep making ICE, which makes me happy.
Anyway, here’s the article from today’s paper:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2024/05/01/gm-cadillac-brand-internal-combustion-engine-gas-vehicles-electric-2030/73527130007/
Mechajaz, howacome you never acall your mother no more? 😉
LOLOLOLOL.
In my opinion you have to compare plug in hybrids to BEVs. A mild hybrid like the regular Prius hybrid only uses electricity generated from a gasoline engine or recovering braking energy. A plug in hybrid takes electricity from the grid to charge the battery and typically has 20+ miles of range under electrical power. You can power your vehicle from very clean energy sources like solar, wind, or hydro with a plug in hybrid or BEV. A mild hybrid will always be dependent completely on fossil fuels. BEVs are not perfectly clean but they are a big improvement over fossil fuel vehicles. If we want to leave a livable world for future generations, vehicles must be powered by renewable energy. I’ve owned a Ford Fusion Hybrid (mild hybrid), Chevy Volt (plug-in hybrid), a Nissan Leaf, and a Tesla. A plug in hybrid like a Prius Prime (starts at $32k) or RAV4 Prime (starts at $43k) are priced similar to or higher than the Tesla model Y (under $40k with tax breaks) and Model 3 (well under $40k with tax breaks). That $15k price difference must be with mild hybrids
When people look at EVs they are mostly thinking about cost to run it. In lots of parts of the country its cheap to gas up and go so a hybrid is more likely to be a better deal. Where I live out in California it was no competition for what is cheaper. I had a big gas guzzling V8 and wanted the performance that a hybrid cannot meet the performance that I wanted.
Most cars should be hybrid.
The BYD Seagull with a claimed 250 mile range on the Chinese driving cycle(probably closer to 150 miles on a US highway at flow of traffic speeds, but it has lots of room for aerodynamic improvements) is CHEAPER than the difference in price between the average US EV for sale and hybrids for sale in the US. Why is this cost even an issue?
Sounds like a problem pertaining to what the manufacturers decide to build, and not with regard to the inherent cost of EVs and their technology in general. If the OEMs wanted to, they could right now build sub-$20k EVs with real-world 200+ mile ranges paying 1st world wages without subsidy, and maybe get $1-2k profit margin on each vehicle sold. The manufacturers instead are chasing the sales of high margin items and remain absolutely hostile to the idea of cheap, good, long-range EVs being available to the US consumer at all. They’d rather you go into debt for a $60,000-100,000 EV truck/SUV/crossover instead, and then throw it in a landfill 5-10 years later when the battery dies right when the payments end because they deliberately designed it to be unrepairable and want you to keep feeding them your money.
The industry’s decisions are going to get them into trouble because most people can’t afford this. As they say in China, “Let it rot.” No bailouts.
Two words: fiduciary obligations
The shareholder MUST get their dividend.
Two words: stolen technology. They didn’t do the R&D and their government actively subsidizes them so the can run thinner margin.
More like bought technology.
Yes, the battery R&D was done in the US.
But when our government decided to cut off subsidies to the company – it ran out of money and the tech asset needed to be sold.
Guess who bought the asset?
The Chinese.
Anything big volume should be hybrid by now. They seem to be more reliable than a regular ICE for some reason, maybe is the way the engine and transmission work. Or we haven’t got british hybrids that will be unreliable for some reason.
A Toyota Sienna will get way better mpg than a regular SUV, more space, more utility and more value in general.
The Toyota Prius is on a stop sale from my understanding for the recent recall. Honda is probably still ramping up their hybrid production with the Accord, Civic and CR-V.
Depends on the Hybrid. From what I’ve seen any traditional hybrid that has an automatic transmission instead of an e-CVT has pretty craptastic reliability.
For PHEVs the same applies, except you also have Range Extended BEVs in the mix and those tend to be at least as reliable as the e-CVT having PHEVs.
I’m actually quite sick of Toyota. I checked this prior week, and there were 660-odd 2024+ Priuses (Prii?) available nationwide, and none on the ground within 100 miles of me (Oklahoma City). I cannot tell if demand is just too high on their hybrids for them to keep up with, or if they are artificially constraining production to keep transaction prices high…but I suspect it’s the latter.
It could also be that OKC dealers just aren’t ordering the Prius, because they’d rather sell a Tacoma, 4Runner, RAV-4, Land Cruiser, or other high-margin truck/SUV. I’m in OKC, too, and finding a hybrid or PHEV here of ANY brand is just harder than it needs to be.
A friend of mine in the PNW has been trying to find a RAV4 Prime for over 6 months. They are nearly impossible to find in stock and are often marked up in price. Toyota is not making many of the plug in hybrids.
That could be it, too. Fowler Toyota of Norman has some Prius units dropping soon. That said, the whole 600-odd in the country indicates more areas are without them than just OKC.
I did end up ordering my 2022 X5 xDrive45e (PHEV) a few years ago from Jackie Cooper BMW, but that was in the throes of the shortages. Besides, they did have one or two 45es on the ground, but they lacked adaptive cruise, which was a must for me at that price point. It took surprisingly little time to arrive, since the X5s are built in South Carolina.
I thought about getting a 530e from Jackie Cooper, but they could never find me one to test drive, so I gave up on that.
Having talked to a few diff Toyota dealers recently, Toyota’s distribution of various vehicles is weighted by region. Anything electric to be East and West. AWDs go North with some East and West. ICE is middle South (New Mex to Alabama).
That’s true. Not to mention the fact that Toyota still has distributors in some regions, including Oklahoma. When it first came to the US in the late 60s, it relied upon distributors, to hedge its bets against the risk of a new market. When the Toyotas were a smashing success here in the ‘States, Toyota bought out its distributors’ contracts..except for two: Gulf States Toyota Distributors (comprising sales in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas) and Southeast Toyota Distributors (comprising sales in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the ‘Carolinas). Dealers in those states actually buy their cars from the distributors, not Toyota itself.
Still, 600 of them listed online–many of which are incoming units that have yet to be delivered to the dealerships–is far too few to suggest that it’s a regional issue.
Well, maybe I don’t know the reason behind it, but I couldn’t find but a small number of Highlander Hybrid AWD within 700 miles of the middle of Texas a couple months ago. None of them in the colors and trim level I was looking for. Those dealers that I talked to said they aren’t getting that configuration in anywhere close to the numbers of the regular Highlander ICE versions. Even the three bigger dealers say they get one or two a month. I had a pretty good selection if I wanted to get one from more than 800 miles away. Once I add the shipping (or travel costs) and dealer markups, it was too expensive.
I didn’t check any Mexican dealerships even though they would have been much closer.
Same. I own one, and I still kind of hate them.
I’m so sick of hearing about the new Taco, GX, 4R, and LC, and the Yota fanbois are insufferable.
After my 4Runner eventually turns to dust, the only other Toyota I’d have interest in owning would be an 80 Series Landcruiser.
I’ve got to assume lots of this is because there are simply more hybrid offerings that occupy the traditional “entry level vehicle” market space. Besides the Bolt and Leaf, what other EV is even offered in a “entry level vehicle” form? I guess the Model 3 is close, but that’s still a closer competitor to something like a 3-Series or CT4 than it is to a Honda Civic.
Is it though? I thought most people had quit calling Tesla a luxury make at this point since most of what they sell these days are their non-luxury models.
These are all of Jason’s favorite things. He’s probably out throwing a fit at the Lumière Rouge right now.
Too true. My pop culture brain instantly went, “The night is dark and full of recalls” when I saw the news yesterday. As much as I dislike a lot of Tesla’s moves, I wish Ford adopted an OTA update system for software-related recalls. My current strategy for dealing with this is to knock out as many as possible when I get an oil change.
Some of the newer Fords have online software updates. That said, you’re still going to end up at the dealer for other things. My ’18 Tesla 3 has been way more reliable than my ’21 F-150 Powerboost.
Not only are they cheaper than electrics, there’s a load of hybrids that are cheaper than regular ICE options. The average price of a new car is now $47,200 – the Prius, Corolla Hybrid, and Camry Hybrid are all under $30k (the Corolla is under $24k, and that’s a bigish compact, close to the size of a midsize from 15-20 years ago, seats 5, and there’s no such thing as a basic car anymore, its pretty loaded even as a base model)
Does the hybrid Camry come with the ICE Camry dent?
Do hybrids and EVs have the same sales-weighted product mix?
I’m doubtful.
The comparison seems flawed.
Here here! LaFerrari, 918 Spyder, and P1 weren’t big sellers because hybrids don’t make sense and are too expensive. They cost something like 60x or more than the Average Mitsubishi Mirage.
THIS
I’m glad/not glad hybrids are selling. Glad because if they are the gateway drug to PHEVs/BEVs then fine, that’s good. But honestly, the climate change issue needs a faster switch than merely hybrids, hence the not glad. As was suggested on this site–having a PHEV that is EV first with a range extender seems to be the way to go.
What’s frustrating of course is that BEVs are simpler than Hybrids/PHEVs. And with Tesla’s price drops maybe we’ll see some real movement on the price disparity. Couple that with building out charging infrastructure and maybe things will change.
All I can say is that for all the range anxiety, I still can’t figure out why people who could charge at home wouldn’t trade “start each morning on a full charge” for another option in most real world commute scenarios.
It’s interesting to see the “price drops” from Tesla are very localized. Some markets, such as the US right now, see those drops immediately whilst others don’t.
If we had a more global market for vehicles (common regulatory requirements), it would likely benefit the consumer much more with the freedom of choices. It seems much easier to do with EVs than with ICE where the emissions requirements of the engines becomes far less a factor. But, then, it doesn’t enable protectionism (as the Chicken Tax has done to protect the US truck market)
I wouldn’t because of the current state of technology. If I was the type of buyer that drive a lot and traded my car in every ~3 years I would consider it. But until there is more standardization and better overall infrastructure for charging out in the world, it’s a non-starter.
Just because the EV works for 80% of my needs is not enough. Yes I can charge at home. But I make a decision on the purchase based on things like, how good is this car for the weekend road trips up to the mountain wineries in my area? Do I do this often? Once a month or so.
The point is, the area of focus needs to be the charge infrastructure. Maybe that’s where federal subsidies should be going instead of helping people purchase $75K luxury vehicles.
I would argue climate change needs hybrids precisely because they can be rolled out faster than a full fleet of EVs. If we can drastically reduce vehicle emissions in a 5 or 10 year timeframe that’s a much bigger short-term win than if it takes us 20 years (which may be optimistic) to roll out the charging and battery mining/manufacturing infrastructure to support an EV-only fleet. Plus, hybrids are a lot more palatable to the general public (see the article yesterday about the Jeep guy discovering 4xe), whereas full EVs still scare a lot of people.
China disagrees with you. As does the planet. The reality is we needed hybrids 10-15 years ago. Now it’s too late. A better late than never mentality is not one we want in a world of tipping points.
What holds us back has been shown time and time again to not be a problem. We need lithium? We got it. The automakers balked at the speedy timetables of the Biden infrastructure bill and now we have some of the fastest build-outs of mines and battery plants and EV infrastructure. The only thing holding us back are politicians slow walking it and the fact that we needed such a bill 5 – 10 years ago.
For most people most of the time EVs are the better solution. I don’t know why people can’t wrap their heads around “a full tank of gas every morning in your garage” and easier maintenance. Or vehicles that are hilariously, joyously faster and more powerful than their ICE counterparts And for those for whom EVs aren’t the better solution, there’s battery first EVs with a range extender.
Even cost is not a barrier since used EV prices have fallen so much. But no..everyone’s afraid of used batteries despite numerous youtube videos showing EVs with 500k to 2M miles on them with surprisingly little loss and the federally mandated transferable 8 year warranty. (Unlike laptop/phone batteries, EV batteries with their computer manages warming/cooling and charging systems just don’t lose so much capacity so quickly.)
It’s all rumor and hearsay… meanwhile the planet burns. We really are the frogs in the teakettle. Which is funny because in reality, frogs jump out. It’s we humans that don’t… and not because we are just comfortable, but because we are stubborn.
+100 points for the Momento reference
One of the most overrated movies of all time.
Booooooo! Booooo!
Good day sir.
ISAIDGOODDAY!
Nitpick: Um, it’s spelled “Memento.”
Matt H: please correct this. Don’t want to be like other websites that do not fix their typos.
I thought that looked funny. Too late for me to edit my reply.
We shall all point and laugh at you!
(Until you burn the prom down, of course.)
Not the same movie. Momento was a housewife who couldn’t remember if she had children. Not to be confused with Mr. Mom, which had a similar plot.