Sorry but this is just not true for any honest meaning of the word "true".
Yes, you have TCO parity in some market segments for some use cases, particularly higher up the market (Tesla M3 vs BMW M3) and in the bottom of the market (subcompacts and compact crossovers) but there are giant gaping holes.
There is no TCO parity (or even an offering) for intentionally built to a price utility vehicles, the little euro city vans and Ford Maverick type stuff.
And this is before you start talking fullsize trucks and vans. The E-transit is a joke from a TCO perspective. It only makes sense if you're trying to run a fairly swanky low milage shuttle service and even then not really. I guess a few senior centers might like them.
The electric half ton trucks are compelling for certain use cases and feature sets but the purchase prices are just so high to start with that the TCO on any useful timeline is way above that of white trucks with vinyl carpets and V6 engines.
TCO parity really isn't there for anyone who gives a crap about TCO and buys accordingly because those people gravitate to the low TCO ICEs and purchase price is such a large contributor to TCO that a reduction in operating costs doesn't wash that out on a timeline that the overwhelming majority of new car buyers care about.
Source: Purchases a new car last quarter. Wanted an EV, wound up with an ICE Honda. :(
I think without half ton trucks that get used as personal commuter vehicles in the mix the comparison gets even less favorable to EVs. Vans face all the same problems but worse because people don't buy $50k half ton vans for mostly commuting with a little bit of heavier work thrown in so the tradeoffs are going to make sense for fewer people. There aren't any midsize electric pickups from big OEMs yet (i.e. I bet someone in China makes one that isn't sold internationally).
I guess insane European fuel costs do potentially make the comparison better in the SUV market segments though...
I'm not saying Europeans don't commute by car, but distances are so much smaller that even a plugin can go electric only. Also vans aren't that many and go even less as commuter vehicle, and pickups (or trucks for that matter) aren't a thing at all - I'm not sure I've seen even one during the entire last month.
There's plenty of fleet sources claiming vans are already winning on TCO in europe.
Which makes sense. Like city busses, EV vans in last mile city traffic are the low hanging fruit for EV adoption.
Planned routes. Being part of mixed fleets (similar to having a two car family and using the EV for most journeys to maximise fuel savings). Stop and go traffic for regen.
>There's plenty of fleet sources claiming vans are already winning on TCO in europe.
Can you cite one? All I'm finding is SEO/AI/low effort listicle type garbage.
>Which makes sense. Like city busses, EV vans in last mile city traffic are the low hanging fruit for EV adoption.
If it makes so much sense for so many users then why aren't we seeing more than the slightest trickle of the?
There's a reason I called the E-transit a joke. That's because it is. Low milage "go somewhere and stay there all day" type van buyers won't pay the initial price. The people moving users who generally buy the higher priced stuff new rack up too many miles in a day and they're gonna suffer some of the worst real world range because they have to heat and cool the cargo.
The only bigger work vehicle EVs are really starting to make sense for is city busses and local delivery (e.g. Amazon and similiar) that need low range, low flexibility (can't turn a van around and send it back out with a new driver at end of shift) and high up front cost. That's a tiny slice of users.
I really want this to work (especially for motor coaches for obvious NVH reasons) because EVs when they work they do an amazing job being pure appliance vehicles. But it just doesn't pencil out without using mental tricks or just writing off downsides that need to be planned around because "other people's money".
If you include capital cost in TCO as you should, a high price up front looks as bad as it should. And since lots of cars are leased or financed, this is also more realistic than the simple&stupid list-price+runningcost calculations.
Sorry but this is just not true for any honest meaning of the word "true".
Yes, you have TCO parity in some market segments for some use cases, particularly higher up the market (Tesla M3 vs BMW M3) and in the bottom of the market (subcompacts and compact crossovers) but there are giant gaping holes.
There is no TCO parity (or even an offering) for intentionally built to a price utility vehicles, the little euro city vans and Ford Maverick type stuff.
And this is before you start talking fullsize trucks and vans. The E-transit is a joke from a TCO perspective. It only makes sense if you're trying to run a fairly swanky low milage shuttle service and even then not really. I guess a few senior centers might like them.
The electric half ton trucks are compelling for certain use cases and feature sets but the purchase prices are just so high to start with that the TCO on any useful timeline is way above that of white trucks with vinyl carpets and V6 engines.
TCO parity really isn't there for anyone who gives a crap about TCO and buys accordingly because those people gravitate to the low TCO ICEs and purchase price is such a large contributor to TCO that a reduction in operating costs doesn't wash that out on a timeline that the overwhelming majority of new car buyers care about.
Source: Purchases a new car last quarter. Wanted an EV, wound up with an ICE Honda. :(