[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Your last paragraph is funny. Not sure a guy talks about tampons and such but the visual imagery is vivid

I guess i became acquainted with these things after dealing with some of these people in the anti-EV threads

Just makes that year 2035 that much more special

[G80indy]

2035 is the green lobby (BS) banner year
That is all

[Tejas1836]

Did T just cut prices again?

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

Did T just cut prices again?

It’s smart.

Best selling ev at those crazy prices. Elon cuts prices to take over the smaller market and take those sales as well.

I read an article that the model y is on pace to beat Corolla in all time quarterly numbers? Maybe I need new glasses but there is a reason why the 3/y are the best selling ev’s of all time.

Let’s go Elon!

[G80indy]

EV mandate from Fed gov. coming to an end.
Go Trump

[M5Rick]

^ Just us to go

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by G80indy

[So…… a deleted post said— BMW owners really hate Tesla on these forums]

Don’t agree
No hate
Just…. No preference

I can respect everyone's propulsion preference. I have two (2) of each type.

There are, however, a few total pro-ICE-or-die weirdo's on this forum that continuously promote anti-EV conspiracy theories. Just to get attention and virtue signal to their kind.

Originally Posted by G80indy

And a general rejection, perhaps, of EVs being shoved down our throats….
Like a lot of things these days!

I don't think anyone is shoving anything down anyone's throat.
Buy and drive what makes you happy!

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

Did T just cut prices again?

Tesla is always screwing with its MSRP prices to tweak demand.
Usually at the expense of increased depreciation for the owners who previously bought its cars at higher price points.

Originally Posted by Snakevenom

5% of car sales are EV … 95% are not. Stop being brainwashed by social media and all the idiots in the collective mind.

In the US, it's ~8% new EV sales, growing again, while ICE sales are stagnating.
Globall, EV sales are at ~13%, or 19.2% if you include hybrids.

[brianeck]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I can respect everyone's propulsion preference. I have two (2) of each type.

There are, however, a few total pro-ICE-or-die weirdo's on this forum that continuously promote anti-EV conspiracy theories. Just to get attention and virtue signal to their kind.



I don't think anyone is shoving anything down anyone's throat.
But and drive what makes you happy!



Tesla is always screwing with its MSRP prices to tweak demand.
Usually at the expense of increased depreciation for the owners who bought its cars.



In the US, it's ~8% new EV sales, growing again, while ICE sales are stagnating.
Globall, EV sales are at ~13%, or 19.2% if you include hybrids.

Authors note: not an ICE nut.

These numbers would need a correction factor to be really presented in an apples to apples format.

To simplify my point, in 2008 let's say 3/100 cars on the lot were EVs. Now it's probably more like 35/100.

We would need to know the differential on inventory to really tell the story you're trying to tell here without being misleading.

BMW plays this game a lot - they reported on stuff like "The total number of manual transmission cars purchased declining by 80%"

In reality - the total number of manual transmission cars offered by manufacturers actually declined by 95% or more, so of course the take rate diminished.

The same thing sort of happens with the new g80 m3 numbers. You can't REALLY flat out just go comparing the manual take rate versus the auto take rate, because there are multiple versions of the auto with AWD and Comp spec. With someone like me - I'm a one car guy and I need to get to work in the winter. I'd prefer the manual and would have bought one if it was AWD but I gotta survive the worst parts of Northeast Winter.

Anyway I'm digressing. . . My point is just that take rate and sale rate data alone isn't really accurate without the adjacent factors considered so take it with a grain of salt and just know that it might not be the whole story.

Of course for reference all my actual numbers and % quoted above are for illustration purposes only they are not accurate, so please don't look at them that way. . . Just for illustrative purposes for the concept.

I do consumer research for a living - seeing the way people share only pieces of the unbiased data I collect to tell a story is really mind blowing.

The other simple example I like is this:

100 people surveyed
98 people disagree with the direction this country is moving in
98 do not agree with most of Bidens Policies
98 do not agree that Donald Trump is a great fit for president

If you only report or highlight on one of those 3 points in your headline/article you can completely change the way people take in the data. You can tell a prefabricated story about whichever party you want to look bad. Nobody ever reports on all of the consumer questions they send out - only the ones that best tell their marketing story and spread the message they want to.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Tesla is always screwing with its MSRP prices to tweak demand.
Usually at the expense of increased depreciation for the owners who bought its cars.

This is an artifact of Tesla's direct to consumer sales methodology. The legacy manufacturers with a franchise dealership sales methodology do the same manipulation of the MSRP, they just do it though incentives, rebates, and financing schemes. Tesla only sells its models from its website, so it just adjusts the MSRP downwards to entice sales.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by brianeck

These numbers would need a correction factor to be really presented in an apples to apples format.

To simplify my point, in 2008 let's say 3/100 cars on the lot were EVs. Now it's probably more like 35/100.

We would need to know the differential on inventory to really tell the story you're trying to tell here without being misleading.

I appreciate the distinction you are drawing, but I don't think it's material to the conclusions.

Inventory numbers are more reflective of OEMs forecasting competency (or lack thereof) and sales / promotion cycles, then true underlying regional demand.

BMW can wipe-out the invenotry on any given model, at any time and in any market, by promoting $199 lease rates on that model. Whether or not that is a good business decision or would reflect try underlying consumer demand for that particular model, is debatable.

Originally Posted by brianeck

BMW plays this game a lot - they reported on stuff like "The total number of manual transmission cars purchased declining by 80%"

In reality - the total number of manual transmission cars offered by manufacturers actually declined by 95% or more, so of course the take rate diminished.

That is a really intersting "chicken & egg" conversation.
I remember reading numerous reports of declining BMW 5/6-speed sales for decades.

• Of course, BMW neglecting to develop new manual trannies and sticking with a decades old 6-speed (that can't handle higher torque levels from new engines) may have something to do with the declining demand for the manuals.
• And automatics getting better and becoming more efficient than manuals with introduction of 8/9/10-speed boxes had something to do with demand shift.
• Also NOT charging extra for slush-boxes likely increased demand for them as well.

Net of all of the above, how much of the slushbox dominance in sales can be explained by any single variable?
That is really hard to answer, and probably doesn't matter in the end. The result is what it is.

Originally Posted by brianeck

With someone like me - I'm a one car guy and I need to get to work in the winter. I'd prefer the manual and would have bought one if it was AWD but I gotta survive the worst parts of Northeast Winter.

I solved that problem by getting a slightly used TM3 as a winter beater (and put winter tires on it) - accelerated EV depreciation is your friend here! And kept ///M3 as a summer-only / track car.

Originally Posted by brianeck

Anyway I'm digressing. . . My point is just that take rate and sale rate data alone isn't really accurate without the adjacent factors considered so take it with a grain of salt and just know that it might not be the whole story.

All fascinating complexity aside, sales numbers do reflect objective reality of the decisions consumers made with their wallets. Not the complexity behind that decision, but the resulting outcomes. And those do matter an aweful lot to the top line of all outomative OEMs.

So the overall upward trajectory in EV sales in the US and the world is not an aberration. It's very much a trend that no auto-OEM can or should ignore.

We can have insightful debates as to why EV take rates in the US are lagging the world (e.g.: many of the best EVs are not available for sale in the US, etc), or why Tesla sales are declining while EV sales of other OEMs are growing (stale product portfolio, stupid pricing, offputting abscent CEO, etc), or what form/factor better suits EV vs. ICE propultion. But the end result is hard to dispute. There will be more EVs on the road next year than the last, and even higher % of new car sales will be EVs vs. ICE.

a

[Efthreeoh]

US EV sales lag the rest of the world because:

- Our gasoline is not over taxed
- US Registration taxes are not displacement based
- Other world locations have better public transportation (rail) for mid-distance travel
- EV are not good for driving distances the US public usually drives. US drivers are used to rapid recharge times.

[Sedoy]

You forgot another important one - cheap Chinese imports are not allowed for sale in the USA (yet). Otherwise, considering the crazy low prices of those EVs, thanks to Chinese government subsidies, they would have flooded the US market really quickly.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

US EV sales lag the rest of the world because:

- Our gasoline is not over taxed
- US Registration taxes are not displacement based
- Other world locations have better public transportation (rail) for mid-distance travel
- EV are not good for driving distances the US public usually drives. US drivers are used to rapid recharge times.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Sedoy

You forgot another important one - cheap Chinese imports are not allowed for sale in the USA (yet). Otherwise, considering the crazy low prices of those EVs, thanks to Chinese government subsidies, they would have flooded the US market really quickly.

Eh, I'm not so sure. I still think range and charge time are the biggest holdback. The Chevy Bolt(s) were inexpensive EV and GM pulled the plug on them.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

US EV sales lag the rest of the world because:

- Our gasoline is not over taxed
- US Registration taxes are not displacement based
- Other world locations have better public transportation (rail) for mid-distance travel
- EV are not good for driving distances the US public usually drives. US drivers are used to rapid recharge times.

Gas taxes directly correlate with EV prevalence. Look at CA, huge taxes, more EVs.

I'm not sure the public transit/rail reason is a "reason". I think it's more a consequence of point 1, because the taxes on gas aren't oppressive, it's more convenient to drive. We have Brightline here in Florida, and it's idea was to do high speed rail for trips "too long to drive, but too short to fly", namely Orlando-Miami. It's flopped HARD. Now it mainly functions as a way to sacrifice fools on the tracks to keep hurricanes away. Why? It's expensive, $80 per person. The time is about the same as driving, and the cost is more than driving most vehicles. Plus once you get to the other city, you still have to get around, so the cost really becomes the first cost, and you're taking a taxi or Uber or something to get around once you get there.

I think the bigger issue rather than charging and range, is cost. If you can sell an EV for 30-40k, people will buy it. But so many of these are 60, 70, 80, 100k plus. And if it's not most cost effective than a gas car, with a ROI vs a gas car year 1, most people aren't gonna do it. Yes, there's some crazy cheap lease deals on them, but a LOT of people (a far larger percentage of people than you'd see on a BMW forum) are staunchly anti lease. People want to buy the car and drive it forever, so a lease doesn't appeal to them. That's to say nothing of battery degradation.

The fact that EVs became a symbol of coastal elites didn't help either. The whole "working class taxpayers paying to subsidize rich coastal elites' new EVs " thing wasn't gonna do good things for their image.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Gas taxes directly correlate with EV prevalence. Look at CA, huge taxes, more EVs.

I'm not sure the public transit/rail reason is a "reason". I think it's more a consequence of point 1, because the taxes on gas aren't oppressive, it's more convenient to drive. We have Brightline here in Florida, and it's idea was to do high speed rail for trips "too long to drive, but too short to fly", namely Orlando-Miami. It's flopped HARD. Now it mainly functions as a way to sacrifice fools on the tracks to keep hurricanes away. Why? It's expensive, $80 per person. The time is about the same as driving, and the cost is more than driving most vehicles. Plus once you get to the other city, you still have to get around, so the cost really becomes the first cost, and you're taking a taxi or Uber or something to get around once you get there.

I think the bigger issue rather than charging and range, is cost. If you can sell an EV for 30-40k, people will buy it. But so many of these are 60, 70, 80, 100k plus. And if it's not most cost effective than a gas car, with a ROI vs a gas car year 1, most people aren't gonna do it. Yes, there's some crazy cheap lease deals on them, but a LOT of people (a far larger percentage of people than you'd see on a BMW forum) are staunchly anti lease. People want to buy the car and drive it forever, so a lease doesn't appeal to them. That's to say nothing of battery degradation.

The fact that EVs became a symbol of coastal elites didn't help either. The whole "working class taxpayers paying to subsidize rich coastal elites' new EVs " thing wasn't gonna do good things for their image.

That is my point, in Europe gas taxes are high, large vehicles with big engines are taxed at a higher rate, and rail between major cities/destinations is much better than the US. And that's because it is cheaper and more convenient to personally drive in the US (i.e. our transportation system is set up for low-cost personal auto ownership use).

If EV fit in the US personal transportation system at the same price point, Uncle Sam wouldn't have to subsidize EV AND make ICEV more expensive to use (wait for it... that's coming next).

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That is my point, in Europe gas taxes are high, large vehicles with big engines are taxed at a higher rate, and rail between major cities/destinations is much better than the US. And that's because it is cheaper and more convenient to personally drive in the US (i.e. our transportation system is set up for low-cost personal auto ownership use).

If EV fit in the US personal transportation system at the same price point, Uncle Sam wouldn't have to subsidize EV AND make ICEV more expensive to use (wait for it... that's coming next).

Don't need to wait, that's what CAFE rules were designed to do. Make ICE vehicles more expensive via government fines to the automakers.

It's also worth noting, this.

[eugenebmw]

It will be interesting to see how many Tesla will pile up in their lots once our government cut the subsidy funding

https://mobilesyrup.com/2025/01/13/t...r-5000-rebate/

[BlkGS]

Tesla has the unique ability to cut MSRPs dramatically and be fine. They were given a fortune via carbon and cafe credits by the Obama administration, so in essence the auto industry paid for all their development and capacity growth. If they have to eat $7500 on them, they will.

It's all the other automakers who can't make money in EVs and have to pay for their development themselves that are gonna get rocked by it.

[G80indy]

Originally Posted by afadeev

used TM3 as a winter beater

I have a question for you! How does that thing like cold temps and charging? I would think that would be a critical factor as a winter car.
I’m sure you all remember Tesla Chicago gate last year….

[G80indy]

EV Mandate = Cancelled

[RM7]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

It will be interesting to see how many Tesla will pile up in their lots once our government cut the subsidy funding

https://mobilesyrup.com/2025/01/13/t...r-5000-rebate/

Gotta remember that car companies want to sell globally, not just in one country. That goes both ways too, so does GM, Ford, and everyone else.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by G80indy

I have a question for you! How does that thing like cold temps and charging?

Just fine.
Was down to 6F this morning, but I preheated the TM3 before heading out, so it was nice and toasty by the time I got in.
That's an under-appreciated benefit of EV vehicles - you can draw the power from main battery to pre-heat or pre-cool them on short notice, indoors or outdoors.

Car is unstoppable on Hakka R5's.
I would much rather flog TM3 throughout the winter than ///M3.

Originally Posted by G80indy

I would think that would be a critical factor as a winter car.

Zero problems driving or charging in cold temps, but < 40F starts taking a haircut in range. Not a practical concern, since my usual dialy commute is ~25 out of ~350 EV miles on full charge.

Still charging to 80% once a week.

Originally Posted by G80indy

I’m sure you all remember Tesla Chicago gate last year….

Sorry, but no, I rarely follow internet anti-EV drama, and must have missed that nothing burger.
I also rarely charge at public charging locations / SuperChargers, since those are alwasy over-priced to parity with gasoline cost per mile.
It costs me 1/5 of gas cost per mile to charge at home, or 1/6 at work.

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

It will be interesting to see how many Tesla will pile up in their lots once our government cut the subsidy funding.

No more than in years prior.
Tesla has been very adept at aggressive price discrimination to align demand with supply. If demand sags, they will lower the price, and vice versa.

I'm personally not a fan of that practice, as it messes with the used car values, but it works exactly as expected for Tesla.



a