Why? They want to protect that recurring service bay revenue. Oil changes, plugs, belts, etc.
In the past decade we've had one new ICE car and two new EV cars.
The ICE car has been in the dealer once for a couple hours to replace rear hatch support struts (nothing to do with the engine, so could happen to any EV that has a hatch).
The EV cars have spent many weeks in the dealer for repairs and waiting for parts. Also issues unrelated to the engine, this was for door lock problems and window regulator problems.
In theory the EV motor is simpler than the ICE engine. But in practice, the ICE engines are bulletproof and almost never have problems. In 36 years of owning cars, I've never had a car in a shop (or dealer) for engine issues. It's always electrical system, electronics, seats, windows, shocks, etc. Components that both ICE and EV cars share.
My spouse and I recently purchased an extremely difficult to find plug-in hybrid EV. We had placed a hold on a specific vehicle destined for delivery to the dealership a few months later. We paid a deposit and signed a receipt that made reference to that vehicle and was given the final price sheet for that specific vehicle at deposit time.
Two days before we were scheduled to pick it up (more than two months after we put the deposit down) the sales guy called and said that the dealership had instituted a new policy on the first of the month that no sales of that specific model and trim level would be authorized by the deal desk without an interior and exterior water resistant coating, and that the lowest price he could offer was an additional $2,500.
As you can imagine that did not stand up to scrutiny and we walked out of there with the vehicle at the total price recorded in the initial paperwork. They signed on the dotted line and never said a word about any new policies until we were ready to pick it up. They did this in a U.S. state where that practice is not legal.
You bet we told Toyota about that when they sent the survey.
If they weren’t making enough to meet their needs then they should have known that when they were negotiating.
I'm not saying the EV's are not theoretically more durable and (much) less maintainance-intensive. I am saying that the best of the best ICE vehicles are not as different as your observation about your own TM3 tries to suggest.
https://www.normreeveshuntingtonbeach.com/honda-fit-maintena...
Well, theoretically yes. The point is that saying "my TM3 has 25k miles and zero maintainance" is worse than anecdata. It's no better than saying "My Fit has had almost zero maintainance at 164k miles". Far better to list the parts and systems not found in an EV, possibly along with likely maintanance schedules.
The spark plugs on the Fit are likely failing right now, btw.
This isn't true. Tesla batteries are liquid cooled. When supercharging, you can hear the fan blowing on the radiator.
While driving there is no engine noise, no unpredictable or delayed acceleration, no need to visit a gas station and have gas drip down the side of the car, and the knowledge that the drivetrain is simple and reliable and isn’t saturated with petroleum products.
I’ve owned some very nice BMWs before the Y, and while I greatly miss the suspension performance I can’t imagine going back to ICE.
The best description of my experience switching to an EV is that it’s been like going from a VCR straight to streaming. It’s fast, convenient, modern, and doesn’t really degrade.
All of the other components still need maintenance. Tires, alignment, suspension etc.
Telsa insisted on it's direct sales model and it was more politically expedient for regulators in many states to carve out an exception to the dealership requirement only for car companies that sell EV's exclusively (only tesla at the time).
While I suppose this didn't seem like a huge threat to the car dealership lobby in each state at the time it's clearly come back to bite them and is the main reason Fords Electric vehicle production and distribution is a different 'car company' on paper, so that they can take advantage of legislation designed for tesla.
Back in the 1930s, the car companies established this system so that they could worry about making cars, and the franchises could worry about selling and repairing them.
Early on, though, the franchisees lobbied their state governments for protection. They feared, among other things, that the giant car companies could open up their own stores across the street, cut prices, and crush the franchise like a bug.
To prevent that kind of abuse, all 50 states passed “dealer franchise laws.” They protected the dealerships in various ways—including barring any car maker from selling directly to consumers.
Those laws didn’t foresee the modern era. What they meant, of course, is that “no car company that has franchises can sell directly to consumers.”
They weren’t even thinking about companies that don’t have franchises, because there weren’t any at the time.
Over the years, Tesla’s legal team has gone from one state legislature to another, pointing out how that rule has become outdated, and suggesting that it get changed. In some cases, they succeeded.
In others, though, Tesla is running into a tougher obstacle.
State legislatures and courts have been smacking down this kind of shenanigan for nearly a century now.
Personally, I think theres ~50% chance Ford will have to split into two companies (separate stock ticker etc.) to be allowed to have an EV only, no-dealership, sales model,
> "It's going to be much more efficient, a lot more online. It's going to be a really different model."[1]
Obviously this will be very controversial and subject to interference by state legislators who have often protected dealerships. Will be interesting to see this transition.
https://insideevs.com/news/571959/ford-dealerships-impacted-...