There is a fundamental truth you have to understand about car companies:They do not exist to make cars. They exist to make money. That distinction, analyst Kevin Tynan tells me, is why they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles.

Perhaps that’s an oversimplification. Tynan is the director of research at an auto-dealer-focused investment bank, the Presidio Group, with decades of experience as an analyst at firms like Bloomberg Intelligence. What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products. It’s that their interest begins and ends with winning customers who will eventually buy more expensive, higher-margin products.

One of the auto industry’s dirtiest secrets is that at scale, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits. In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    28 days ago

    Getting rid of the gas tax and switching to a mileage tax that factors in vehicle weight would help with this. If it costs you more every year to drive a bigger, heavier car, you’re going to want something smaller.

      • comador @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        California is basically doing tax trials based on total mileage travelled per year, but not size.

        My understanding from people I know in the CA Govt. legislature is that they have to tax based on what is known and one could easily have modifications on vehicles that would go unnoticed (truck lift kits, rice burners, hack jobs, etc). Mileage otoh is submitted during tax season already.

        • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          28 days ago

          Very few, if any, modifications are going to dramatically change a vehicle’s curb weight. Of course, electrics weigh more than similar ICEs, so a better reason to skip a weight based tax is so as to not disincentivize electrics.

          Edit: Also, what do you mean “rice burners”? Afaik, rice burner refers to any vehicle of Asian origin whether tuned or not. And trust me, tuning a car is not going to increase the curb weight by more than a few pounds.

          • comador @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            28 days ago

            Sorry, I got ahead of myself without clarifying. The idea of taxation based on the size of “stock” vehicles or even a stock vehicles estimated mpg was turned down because considerations such as: Vehicle Body Modifications, Vehicle Engine Modifications, 5th Wheels, Trailers, Poorly Tuned or Mal-Maintained Vehicles and many others listed means the end result would be a poor assessment for more than 2% of registered vehicles and thus resulting in not taxing appropriately.

            So while they can do it (tax by size or empg) by pulling any data that the DMV or tax filings show, those considerations hamper the idea’s effectiveness in taxation for the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

            As a result, Road Charge (mileage) was adopted in CA as the future replacement for the existing 7.5% + gas tax. https://caroadcharge.com/

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      28 days ago

      As long as they do it by checking the odometer once a year and not with some kind of ridiculous privacy-destroying GPS-based scheme, I’m all for it.

      (There are some dipshits who try to justify the latter by claiming they need to know where you drive to send the revenue to the right jurisdiction. Bullshit! They can just measure traffic volumes on each road segment – which they already do – and allocate proportional to that instead.)

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        Agreed you don’t need the mileage aspect just weight and VAT. However your insurance company app is likely already pulling GPS shenanigans and if your OnStar or whatever “roadside assistance” GPS box and cellular modem are enabled a lot more than just your location are being shared with anyone willing to pay for it.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          Not on me, they aren’t. My newest vehicle is from the mid-2000s and none of them have tracking built in.

          On a related note, I can’t own an EV electric car because nobody will sell me one that respects my privacy.

          Edit: I do own several EVs: they’re bicycles, not cars. (They are my and my wife’s “daily drivers,” though.)

          • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            I disabled the OnStar box on mine and went over it with a flipper zero. Overkill I know but it was a fun afternoon seeing just how many radios and how much signal generation there is in a modern vehicle.

            The only radio now is remote start and key auth.

            Sidenote if you have an older car you might want to get an OBD2 lock, they’re 30 bucks and are a pretty handy theft deterrent. Metal ones tend to be better.

    • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      28 days ago

      The problem with that is that EVs are heavier, meaning that smaller EVs would be taxed at the same level as SUVs or trucks. But it might at least incentivise people to go for smaller ICEs, and switching to mileage tax might be necessary anyway.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        But isn’t it the weight that does more damage to the roads that the taxes are intended to pay for?

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          the weight does damage yes, but the lionshare of road damage is caused by shipping trucks because they are magnitudes heavier than a civilian vehicle while loaded. It’s the reason truck weigh stations exist

          • ccunning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            27 days ago

            …and a weight based tax would put the lion’s share of the tax burden on shipping trucks.

            I think we’re in agreement here?

        • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          Do you think an electric car that weighs 1000lbs more than similar ICE cars is doing that much more damage to the road? And compare the damage cars, suvs, etc, would do versus box trucks, tractor-trailers, etc. There is no comparison to the damages between the two classes of vehicles. While true, an SUV will do more damage to the road than an econobox hatchback, even combined they don’t equal the damage a fully loaded tractor-trailer will do.

          • ccunning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            I’m not sure your point here. It sounds argumentative but in fact I think we agree?

            I think the damage is proportional to the weight so taxing based on weight makes sense.

    • Seleni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      But that would disproportionately hit poor people. Generally they have to live farther out, where rents are cheaper, and in much of the US public transit is a pile of shit.

      Hell, even in places where it isn’t it’s still painfully inconvenient. I live in a fairly transit-friendly city, and it takes my husband 45 minutes to an hour to get to work by transit, or 10-12 minutes by car.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        How far is he from work? If your city has the right transit chops, an ebike might actually put both a car and transit to shame. Drives that take an hour by bus or 35 minutes by car take 26 minutes or less in my city, due to godawful traffic. But the bike lanes have no traffic lights and cut straight through massive areas, instead of block by block streetlights.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          27 days ago

          The problem is there are no easy safe bike paths directly there; he would have to either ride out of his way to one or travel part of the way on narrow fast roads that have a lot of box-truck and semi-truck traffic. Or get on the freeway for a stretch, which is also bad in different ways.

          The bike paths that there are, are pretty nice, but they’re more geared towards ‘enjoy a ride along the river’ and less towards ‘get from the inner city out and back again quickly’.

          But yes, when he is willing to take those risks, it’s about a half-hour or so to get to work.

          I’ve noticed this a lot in industrial areas; no-one seems to think you’d want to ride a bike there, so they don’t bother with infrastructure. Unless it’s in the inner city, but in that case it’s more a thing of happenstance since there are bike paths already surrounding the area so it’s less work to add a few connecting paths.

          • Wahots@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            Yeah, hopefully that is shifting a bit more. When a bike system works, it is really nice. But many cities are just now realizing that they can be more than toys. It took our city to a breaking point before they realized that there was no physical room to keep adding lanes to the highways and roads around the city now that things have been built up. We still have traffic so bad that it can take upwards of an hour to move two blocks, though. That’s starting to change now, finally.

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      28 days ago

      You realize that electrics are heavier than similar sized and shaped gas vehicles, right? So this would be an incentive to keep buying gas cars.

  • ShepherdPie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits.

    This is also why cars are loaded with electronics now. They’re high margin add-ons to inflate the value of the car with little cost.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      Also they break and are almost impossible to fix, so basically throw the car out after the lease is done and get a new one.

  • Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles

    Huh, that’s strange. I’m not really interested in a $25,000+ EV. Turns out that a $1,200 ebike is faster than my car (due to traffic) and costs orders of magnitude less to maintain and charge. I’ve basically just stopped driving.

    Perhaps my interest will be piqued when they can develop a sub $25k EV, without half the “smart” features like subscriptions for Bluetooth audio and heated seats. Until then, I’ll use my old car like…a dozen times a year.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        Yeah, it really fucking sucks when there’s only one form of transportation and virtually no alternatives. I’ve lived in places like that, and it’s always infuriating when your car won’t start and you are already running late for work. And the nearest bus is really slow and on a half-hour basis. My old city didn’t even have bus stops for awhile, you just had to flag the bus down and hope they saw you.

        • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          26 days ago

          I wouldnt complain if they’re was something like 1. A motorcycle highway, or 2. A functional high speed railway network.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    Damn, I guess the nissan leaf needs a recall, it’s top cheap. How unfortunate that car manufacturers ignore a sizable chunk of their market

  • Tautvydaxx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    Dacia Spring. Small, light, 300km city range. 19000€ from dealer. I bought mine used with 2000km driven and two doors needed painting for 6000€. Half year old. I drive about 100km every day in the city so far so good.

  • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    28 days ago

    Yeah. The “affordable” ones are just there too start the sale.

    They are already have the lot dressing manufacturing lines built, and won’t build EV loss leaders until they are needed to bring in customers.