And, Tesla is an outlier here. Other EVs are progressing MUCH faster.
Kia and BYD are two prominent examples. They're outputting huge batteries and absolutely bonkers charging times.
But even US manufacturers have surpassed Tesla. What GM is doing is more impressive.
The problems with used cars are usually:
1. The previous owner abused the car
2. There is known damage which is being kept hidden from you
For those boosting BYD, etc, the finish is shiny but low quality, and is rife with safety red flags - an example being by in large you can watch YouTube and movies and sturr on the central screen while driving. (It’s scary in Asia with grab drivers watching videos while weaving in and out of traffic) - but the price is good.
Actually to edit this comment - the main (only?) reason I bought the car is because if I'm in an accident I want to try to be in safest car possible and if my sig other is driving I want them to be in the safest car I can find. I thought that paying a premium at release in model X 2020 was well worth the premium if people I love are in it.
I also bought it for the safety. Even the FSD I consider a substantial safety feature. I don’t take naps in the back seat when it’s ok - I pay attention. The joint probability of it or me noticing a drifting car or whatever is considerably better than me alone.
In this sense, EVs depreciating faster than ICEVs is exciting, since if my current Tacoma prematurely gives up the ghost (or I buy a second car) I can add “snag an EV for cheap” to my list of available options.
How many years/miles does the average new ice cost and how much does it cost to own/operate.
I tend to buy the bottom of the market. My last cost £1100 and has lasted 3 years/9k miles so far and seems reasonable.
I didn’t buy electric because they are far more expensive. That’s seems to be at odds with the claim they deprecate more.
There are 57 electric cars under 3k for sale and 30,000 petrol ones on auto trader.
At any price the ratio is about 10:1 rather than 600:1.
Second hand EVs are more expensive than second hand petrol cars.
Just drive it till it's no longer operational or gift it away to a family member at some point and you get full value of what you paid for without a care in the world about second hand market.
That's what I meant by stops working - stops working for you.
No longer operational meant broken and not worth repairing.
More and more people buy things for the purpose of reselling them. Houses are now more investments than places to actually live in. Rubbing alcohol was bought up during Covid so people could resell. Cryptocurrency is bought with the goal of selling for double a few months later and nobody really believes in the "currency" aspect of it. Pokémon cards, originally made for kids and to play in a card game, are now all scooped up by cart load by adults so they can resell them on eBay, and those buyers hope to resell later. The 2020s has people trying to sell used cars for equal or more than their new value. Strange times.
Not wanting to eat 50% of a car’s value in depreciation in 2-3 years is a sane decision.
Expecting to sell a used car for a profit without a shortage of used cars is not sane.
I bought a Toyota RAV4 in 2021 and it’s depreciated about 20-25% in 4 years. I could’ve saved a couple thousand bucks and got a Nissan Rogue instead, but that model has depreciated about 50% by now, and I’d be worse off.
They aren't degrading either, though
Complex driver aid/“safety” systems, outrageously complicated “infotainment” systems that are also used to interact with system functions, sealed/un-serviceable transmissions, exhaust gas filtration and recirculating systems, these are all additional points of failure that represent a degradation on modern ICE cars.
These cars won’t be around 20 years after manufacture in the same way Toyota Camry and Corolla are.
You can go buy a 50 year old muscle car and upgrade the radio to something kind of modern. But that won't be possible with my car 50 years from now. It's too integrated.
The sales guy had clearly never considered this issue before.
If it can happen to a $1500 phone or a $5k computer, I'm sure it will happen to a $20k car eventually.
Apparently a bunch of jeeps got bricked by a pop software update.
This seems to happen far too often. I've come to the conclusion that salespeople pretend this is the case on purpose, since it benefits them for you to believe that you're the exception.
Somebody could claim driver aids and infotainment EVs are "degrading" in EVs in the exact same way - in fact they're even more integrated in EVs.
And although EVs don't have the same transmissions and exhaust gas systems, they have their own unique complexities and points of failure, like batteries and regenerative braking systems.
ICE cars are practically falling apart between service windows when compared to EV.
There's no way I'm buying an EV. I can't charge it where I live, it won't easily refuel where I'm going, and I hate infotainment centers over knobs and buttons.
If I do buy a new car - and I really don't have to - it'll be an ICE without an annoying screen in the middle console.
https://roadwarriornews.com/autoenshittification-allows-car-...
While some do need batteries sooner, some ICE cars need new engines sooner. It's a wash. Average lifespan is comparable.
(Electric would win hands down if Tesla had better manufacturing quality though.)
It's a bigger problem with a Tesla, as there is no sensibly priced repair network, and getting original parts has lead times that will lead to replacing the car.
Maybe, but an oil change & minor service for my Mom's off-warranty Mercedes is clsoe to $1000. You seem to be fighting yourself if you're after a long-term reliable driver and go Euro luxury.
The issue is that all those Kias got stolen and trashed by Kia Boys. :(
I had a 2011 Kia Soul that I was going to drive until it died. Someone else did the dying part for me.
not the 1.6L GDI one
The absurd warranty Kia used to have encouraged them to put out good products. I had incorrect oil put in my Soul (at an oil change place!) and Kia warranty replaced the entire engine.
Also, the link you shared is just a collection of anecdotes. It doesn't provide evidence of a trend.
That's a fair amount of misinformation in your post.
1) Any reliable ICE brand goes well above 200k miles with basic maintenance. There's a long history here of reliability and why so many drivers choose boring yer reliable brands like Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc. If you choose brands that do not prioritize reliability then that's on you. (i.e. Mercedes drivers switching into Tesla)
2) Mileage (distance) is not actually the determining factor here in longevity, car age is. Average age of ICE cars is around 12 years in the USA. That's average, which means there are many cars that are much much older than that. Battery cars will be lucky if they average out 8 years as a fleet. Probability is 75%+ you're looking at a battery replacement at the 12 year mark if not sooner. Vast majority of drivers will not replace said battery making the car a throw away due to cost (no one financially competent spends $10k-$20k on a battery for a car worth less than $10k). This will absolutely drive fleet age down, resulting in a younger fleet and more disposable cars. Replacement batteries are not plentiful or cheap and there's no reason for that to change due to the industry strategy.
"Tesla still averages being able to hold 90% of original charge"
3) Lucky you. It's well known in the community first year degradation is typically 5%-10% and there after 1-2% per year till a major failure. Do you know how to measure your original charge? Have you driven the car from 100% to 0% to verify total battery capacity or you just going of the BMS hoping it knows the true capacity. BMS is regularly off by 5%+ so for all you know your true capacity is already nearing 80%. If you know Lithium battery science then you know after 80% the capacity hits a cliff rate of degradation accelerates. Few people drive their cars below 10% battery so they don't really know.
1. Yes, the range is a little less. One person got their battery replaced by a 3rd party specialist. Runs great.
2. They certainly are repairable, just take it to Tesla service or a 3rd party mechanic.
3. Even if the battery is $20k, now you essentially have a new car for only $20k.
By this logic, I get a new car every time I fill up my tank.
Even then, batteries in EVs don’t have a 100% failure rate. There are still many 15 year old Leafs driving around on the original battery, and I’m not sure the out-and-out failures (I.e. not including gradual capacity loss) are a high number either.
Modern EVs (2016-present) have even lower failure rates again (below 1% within 200k miles including those replaced due to capacity loss)
Losing 30% of 120 miles is a lot more significant to most people than losing 30% of 300 miles (which >99% won’t within the life of the car).
Someone has a 90 mile round trip commute and buys a car with a 120 mile range. Having it drop below 90 miles after a decade isn't working for them anymore, so they sell it. Works fine for someone with a 30 mile commute.
Are they really, though?
A 2021 Model 3, Mach-e, Polestar 2, Model Y, F-150 Lightning, e-Tron, or ID.4 (to name just a few) are not too different from the ones sold today. Aside from software updates and minor refinements (mostly DFM), I don't see much progress. That's not a problem, since they're all competent vehicles for single-car households.
Several 2025/26 models have even been de-contented compared to their 2021 selves.
Trying to steel-man your argument a little, the only models I can think of with significant progress are the bZ4X/Solterra (widely panned due to initially uncompetitive specs and pricing), Leaf (which has been getting small, incremental improvements for more than a decade) and the now-discontinued Bolt (which was the cheapest road-tripable EV).
I think you really have to be looking compliance cars that entered the market before the Model 3 and/or models that were acknowledged as uncompetitive when new to find significant/fast progress.
No, the real problem is that the true market-clearing price for most of these vehicles was $7500-$10000 less than MSRP (which was set knowing the regulatory environment), combined with the false calculation of depreciation based on MSRP instead of market price.
This seems like it. If you paid $29,000 for something with a $36,500 MSRP because of a $7500 credit and a few years later it's worth $22,000, the amount of depreciation you're calculating by starting from MSRP and the amount that the buyer actually experienced are off by more than a factor of two.
Meanwhile the credits caused more new sales than there would have been otherwise, which means more cars of that model available in the used market, and supply and demand is still a thing.
It's not evidence that people don't want them, it's evidence that if you subsidize something the price comes down.
I have anecdotes of friends/family/coworkers who bought cars (or second cars for the household) to avoid public transport.
And 2nd hand prices for cars gere (Australia) went batshit insane for a while during and as we chose to pretend that COVID was over - and those artificially inflated prices are mostly over now.
In late 2020 and early 2021, Used car prices plummeted due to so many people trading in 2nd vehicles. I remember tire kicking a 2008 vehicle that was 2000$ then...
Whiplash on used cars started later in 2021, as people were starting to go back out more and in some cases beginning to RTO.
The combination of rising new car prices and rising interest rates in 2022 only further hurt the market. On top of that the newer cars are in many cases less reliable so people are holding on longer.
Fwiw I just double checked and For reference that same 2008/make/mileage is now more like 5000$...
Sorry that was difficult to grasp I will try to be clear in the future!
Of course both can be true as well.
I see from the EV my parents bought, they got for 22k euro, a car that does 240km on paper. Now a few years later, you can buy a BYD for 26k, that does 450km (ext version) on paper. That same BYD is WAY more fancy, tech gadgets etc...
But that is comparing a lower market segment where this effect is stronger.
On the higher end market, where the Tesla's used to dominate, we see less movement as those cars already came with tons of tech, and large batteries.
Thing is, i am still not buying a EV despite them being better. The same arguments we had with EV disadvantages is still present today. I rather buy a second hand gasoline engine simply because of the convenience of the default 600 a 700km range on most vehicles, the 5 minute tank job, the lack of charging in the city, the prices despite the heavier depreciation in the second hand market are still worse.
Ironically the gasoline car we bought 10 years ago, for 7.5k, still sells today for 8k in todays market (added 50k kms on the car). So even if we take a cut, the actual gasoline engine depreciation is strangely less strong. I track several gasoline cars where i had a interest in from years ago, same phenomenon.
For some reason you expect gasoline cars to drop more in pricing because now in EU 17% of new cars sales are EVs and 36% are hybrid. So more gasoline cars on second hand market? No ... because people are also buying less cars because of the economy, more work from home etc. Resulting in actually less second hand cars as people hold on to their vehicles longer, waiting out this transition periode.
Right, because the other $26k is being subsidized by the party. And much like the US found out with rare earths: once China has the market cornered, the price will rise and/or they’ll use access to their goods as a tool of war.
They’re playing the long game and western nations seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
And even if true, it doesn't follow for me that "therefor, batteries must become more expensive in general, despite the current trend".
I think you're implying lock-in and extractive profits, rather than rising cost of manufacture. It's an argument for diversity of key industries, and that batteries might become such. I agree with that. But as an argument that (in parent the comment's words) "so, battery prices will skyrocket", it seems a bit thin to me.
battery prices are expected to "Plummet" not "Skyrocket": https://cleantechnica.com/2025/10/15/plummeting-battery-pric...
Batteries are not a differentiated product. They're basically completely defined by 3 numbers: capacity (in watt-hours), power delivery (watts), and weight. Once those are optimized (which is the process going on now), the chemistry, construction, and manufacturing of batteries is basically a solved problem. Any barriers to entry are purely in the technology and manufacturing. About 200 years of industrial history shows that these are not durable barriers to entry: eventually, technology and know-how diffuses, and knowledge of how to make even very complex machines becomes a commodity. (See eg: power looms, memory chips, hard disks, agriculture, TVs, automobiles, drones.)
Durable competitive advantages usually take the form of either a.) complex consumer interface, eg. with software or CPUs b.) network effects, eg. telecommunications, payment networks, software again, utilities or c.) regulations, eg. payment again, airplane manufacturing, healthcare, and shortly software. These are industries where factors outside the company in question ensure that there will only be one or at most a small set of companies in the market.
When you have a commodity product, the only route to extractive profits is to form a cartel and lobby governments or consumers to believe the cartel is in their interests, eg. with oil or diamonds. But this is a hard sell because the cartel is not in their interests. You can generally only fool people for a decade or two before they decide they've had enough and legislate your monopoly out of existence.
People tend to overindex on the software industry when it comes to "maximizing profits" because that has been the big story of the 2010s, ignoring that Big Tech very carefully implemented every play in the "build a monopoly" playbook to get there, and that millions of indie software developers actually do not make a very good living because their products are commodities.
But the rest stands. The barriers aren't that high. How soon it is diversified, depends on how much attention the other countries and companies are paying.
Also chinese companies innovate better and have more efficient supply chains that western ones.
The push to ban chinese automakers is stupid because it punishes customers at the benefit of automakers. Crony Capitalism at its worse.
Yeah because they just steal and copy everything from Western companies and others worldwide. Why spend hundreds of millions and 10 years doing R&D when you can just hack in and steal it? It's the Chinese way.
Chinese hackers took trillions in intellectual property from about 30 multinational companies
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinese-hackers-took-trillions-...
The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion.
China is the world’s principal infringer of intellectual property, and it uses its laws and regulations to put foreign companies at a disadvantage and its own companies at an advantage.
- https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/china-exec-summary-risk-...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_pr...
Salt Typhoon is an advanced persistent threat actor believed to be operated by China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) which has conducted high-profile cyber espionage campaigns, particularly against the United States.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora
Industrial espionage: How China sneaks out America's technology secrets
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
etc etc etc
And the solution is to punish consumers and enrich GM's totally failed leadership and irrational shareholders by throttling only competition they left(chinese).
Here in europe cars have become so expensive compared to just 10y ago.
Some of it is because of stupid green policies, but most if because EU carmakers have been successful in reducing the competitive pressure from China by the use of tariffs on chinese firms.
Check the ownership of the different brands and you will discover from the dozens of brands in Europe, there are really only a few companies making cars. And the "mother company" then shares chassis between models, engines between models. So you can have a a Lada with a Renault engine, with a Dacia chassis. We see 3 brands, but in reality, its one brand.
* Groupe Renault's owned brands include Renault, Dacia, Alpine, and Lada.
But wait ...
* Stellantis was formed from the 2021 merger of two major auto groups: PSA Group (which included Citroën and Peugeot) and FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles). Therefore, the brands Stellantis owns are now a part of Citroën's parent company, which include brands like Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge, and Opel.
You see the issue very fast. If you own many brands, do you compete against each other, or do you "stabilize prices for max profit". Same issue with other brands...
Its like in the US, where if you trace back the brands, like 3 or 4 companies, own like 90% of the known US food brands. And when you have only a few companies, gentlemen's agreements about not competition too much are a thing.
Hey, why are HDD not dropping in prices for the last 10+ years. Well, there are only 3 brands left (with two that are huge). Hey, why did SSD/NVME prices suddenly skyrocket. Well, only a few brands make the stuff, and when one decided to increase prices, all of a sudden the rest also followed. Strange is it not...
We are in the age of monopolies again, and that is linked to a lot of the price issues.
They also hired a ton of european designers for their house brands. They have no need to copy anything.
Yes, the west let this happen, and it’s too late to cry about it, action needs to start happening (and I don’t mean import barriers or a trade war) if we don’t want to be dependent.
Current rates are BYD (17%), Geely (18.8%), and SAIC (35.3%).
> And much like the US found out with rare earths:
Rare earths is not rare at all. China has a cornered the market on processing those minerals for cheap. The problem is that we in the West have no appetite to actually support companies to process those "rare" earths.
And the US is really the last country to even talk about batteries, when the arrested 300+ Koreans that worked to get a US battery plant going.
> They’re playing the long game and western nations seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
Its not just a government issue, its a companies issue. You think that car companies in Europe do not get subsidies? Have you ever looked at how much subsidies they get opening new plants or renovating plants?
Reality is that a lot of car companies enjoyed their little monopolie positions in Europe. Sure, we got a lot of brands, but in reality its a illusion of competition, as most brands are owned by a few big companies.
China had a different situation, where yes, there was subsidies from the government (and a lot of misuse of those subsidies), but you had 100's of car manufactures entering the markets. I mean, we talk about BYD often but BYD was not even a car manufacturer until 2005 ... The result is a strong competition between car makers, what resulted in a lot of technological development and a push to be better then the next guy(s). Constant copy and innovation work. Work to reduces prices to be able to compete better, as remember, their competitor also go those subsidies.
We have this issue with our car industry only to thank to our own car industry. Frankly, i am happy to see the Chinese enter the EU market, for the simply fact that it pushed the EU car makers to actually start innovating again and offering more to the clients.
The issue with competition to dead was a issue in new upcoming industries, like solar. Because their both sides started with the same level vs +subsidies. The car industry is a totally different beast with deep pockets and manufacturing capabilities. So lets not act like "poor EU car makers".
This would be the killer for me. I have a private garage with plugs, and even at 120V, I can out-charge my typical driving needs. I work from home and only occasionally take trips beyond a few miles, with a few longer road trips a year.
My IONIQ 5 (USA) does 300 miles (480 km) on paper, but in practice, I've seen a fair bit less. That said, it does charge up 20->80% in under 20 minutes at a fast charger.
Was on a road trip last summer, around Norway, in VW id.Buzz. Charging time of 5min vs 20min doesn't matter. When you're on that long trip, you need time to eat, go to bathroom, walk a little so your legs/back doesn't hurt. In the whole trip there was maybe one forced trip to a shop, because we had time to burn (the only charger was too slow and needed a whole hour to charge).
OTOH have a friend with first gen Leaf and his max charging speed is pretty slow. He additionally can't charge at home and this makes the slow charging time a little off a nuisance.
However, where I live in Paris, there are three parking spots with chargers available around my apartment. Some apartment buildings have underground parking, for which I understand there's a push to set up charging infrastructure, but many buildings do not. Mine doesn't. If I had an EV I'd have to wait around for one of the three places to free up, wait for the battery to charge, then go move the car to a different spot.
Now, I don't particularly need a car, which is why I don't own one, but for my use case, an EV would be an all-around hassle to keep charged. I also mainly use vehicles to go on trips to remote places—I very rarely take highways. Hell, a few years ago I was in the mountains, and gas stations were so far apart that I was running on reserve when I got to one.
I'm not against EVs, and it's clear there are many situations where they're great. But I think we're still in a transition period with plenty of situations that aren't covered yet.
Very much a misconception; unlike in an ICE, you're not consuming energy idling in traffic, in fact your efficiency tends to go up with the lower speeds in traffic.
Also as far as Stop and go... its typically also lower speed; wind resistance is not linear based on speed, so 'crawling' is not that bad.
Im in the US and drive a hybrid rather than an EV, that said 'stop and go' is when I will often seem an MPG -increase-, so long as I gently accelerate (in severe stop and go, just letting my foot off brake and not touching gas).
That's also some of the justification for 'mild hybrids' that have an auto stop and maybe at best a 11kW/120Nm electric motor to kick things off. If you don't drive with a lead foot they can improve efficiency (but overcomplicate things compared to Toyota HSD)
I suppose main counter condition would be in low temperature conditions; AC is fairly efficient, Heating less so, and then in severe cases the batteries need to activate their own self heaters.
I think that’s only true if chargers are sitting idle. Otherwise you’re waiting longer in a queue before you can begin charging, and this delay compounds.
I'm honestly not that bothered by it. I'm very much a "type B" road tripper. I don't care if it takes me an extra hour or two to get there, as long as I'm having a good time. Heck, I might go down some random road named "Old Priest's Grade" and add an extra hour to the trip just because the descent has beautiful views.
That is often the argument that i see but people forget a lot:
Fast charging if often 20 > 80% for 20min. If you want 80 to 100, its a lot less fast (think how your phone slows down).
While you can drive down to 5% of less, it can become a issue if you do not find a charger. When the summer vacation happened, a lot of north traffic goes south, over France ( and reverse).
What happened? People ended up waiting 15 a 25min at the chargers traffic jam in their cars. Then they charged up to 80% (because the stations had people to manage the flow), and needed to drive out (or pay more/fine).
This resulted that your range was already reduced by 20%. You ended up wasting 15 a 25 minutes stuck in your car. And with airco's on because its summer, so more battery drain. Aka, you did not really tank X km range, but X - waiting usage - 20% less limit.
Its always fun to compare a gasoline engine 5 min tank job, vs "not a issue, we need to stretch our legs", but when the reality of long trips that often coincide with vacation periodes... Yea, then the disadvantages of that statement come into play.
So the irony is that, a EV with a realistic 500km range, got hit with a 20% at chargers, then another hit from the waiting, o and you had no choice, it was fast charge or no charge.
I remember warning people to not see EVs based only on short trips or long "out of season" trips but also on those typical school vacation trips that many take. Ironic part, if you drove a hybrid, 5 min tank job for 100% fuel at the regular price.
It's not a big deal especially if your average stop is much longer than that.
Or if you have a car with battery swapping, which only takes 3 minutes from 0% to 90%.
Companies never buy used, so I think a lot of those sales are from buyers who wouldn't consider used. So those buyers are only now starting to create supply in the second hand market
I am fairly baffled when I come across positive vibes for modern cars. I'm not declaring those vibes wrong.
I'm saying I don't understand the lack of angst and resentment for
what vehicle owners have lost (full ownership - what they've
bought can no longer be assumed to be theirs. features and
operations can be [and are!] stolen by manufacturers.
whole vehicles have been effectively stolen when
a manufacturer declares a vehicle is no longer operational
[because something something violation].
other things owners have lost: safe tactile controls,
non-extortionate repair costs - which insurance companies
will pass on to every policy holder they can)
how drivers are mistreated by manufacturers (relentless surveillance,
driving data collected to exploit owners and empower other entities
[ex:insurance] to financially or otherwise mistreat them
- inc deeply personal data like mental health and other
personal trips. nothing is off the table.)
how drivers are forced to mistreat everyone around them (continually
blinding drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.
continually robbing other drivers of critical distance visibility.
leaving inches on both sides of their parked car for passengers in
adjacent cars to exit)
how they are forced to be less-safe drivers (forcing eyes away from the
road to make routine adjustments to climate, etc - adjustments that
for generations were trivially done by touch)
This must supersede any TPM/copyright restrictions or other encumbrances.
2021 Tesla is on the Intel processor, so the software runs laggy and is missing some updates.
It would likely have the heatpump which was introduced 2020 but some markets only got it 2021 if I remember correctly.
You are also missing on cooled seats, have worse noise isolation & worse dampers, no lfp Batterie, 130km less range and so on
This alone has a giant effect on the second-hand market (of Tesla, which again was the dominant brand years ago so it's also the dominant second-hand brand)
Yes, there are people traveling with Kona or Leaf but personally I would not do it.
For any given brand, the number of vehicles on the road isn't a function of the brand's popularity this quarter. Its the sum of popularities over the last decade or more. So, loss of reputation takes a long time to feed through. And people wanting to unload them won't make them less prevalent on second-hand markets, quite the opposite.
But also, the % of EVs that I see that are Teslas is slowly declining, as other brands proliferate and the EV market gets larger.
I discussed what I see, that's inherently local not global. There could be places where Tesla sales are slowing down, even if they're net growing globally.
Local is London, UK for me, btw.
I discussed Tesla's as a % of EVs total. A brand such as Tesla could still be e.g. growing sales at 5% per year, but if the EV market is growing at 10% per year, they're still becoming a smaller % of the total number of EVs on the road.
The more interesting trend to me is the proliferation of many different EV brands. Time was when Tesla was the only EV. Then there were a few challengers. Now it's all-in from traditional German brands such as BMW and VW, The Korean Hyundai-Kia group have a lot of new models, through to BYD and the other Chinese newcomers. Even Toyota and Skoda are there now.
I think that something like this Tesla "relative decline even as sales grow" is happening, and this is a natural consequence of the EV market diversifying and maturing. If you really want an EV it doesn't have to be either Tesla or Nissan Leaf any more. There are lots of options and ruling out one specific brand for whatever reason is not going to prevent that.
If you want records, I'll note that 1) The largest EV maker by worldwide volume is now BYD and 2) BYD is pushing hard into the UK market, and others. It's early days for them in the UK, more so for the other Chinese newcomers.
I'm sure you can understand local growth vs. global growth when you look at BYD: They are number 1 globally, but have negligible EV sales in the USA.
And BYD being number one globally underscores that, in a growing market, Tesla can have a record quarter and still be losing % share of the total market.
"Chinese EV giant BYD sees UK sales soar" : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w5jl2jgqwo
The Highland revisions made the car much quieter, less rattly and boxy. The windows are two-ply for sound reduction. The suspension feels better and less rattly. The panels fit. Water doesn’t come up inside the doors now.
I don’t know if there’s any significant new EV tech in there, but they significantly upgraded the rider experience by improving their car-building.
Of course, VW, Audi, etc have been making doors that fit for a long time, so this could be a Tesla-specific thing.
Both versions are super fun to drive. Just whizzy and responsive. Fun. The new one also doesn’t suck on noisy highway cruising like the old one did.
I went from a 2020 Model 3 to a 2025 and the self driving experience is dramatically better. I’m one of those “I will never use FSD” people and I honestly love driving…but it’s so good I find myself using it constantly and just being awestruck.
Yes, if you look beyond progress within a specific model line. For instance, there is a marked difference between the range and towing capacity of a 2023 Chevrolet Silverado EV and the Ford Lightning. The Kia EV9 offered a substantial price advantage over existing 3-row EVs when it was introduced in 2023. I think you're right that actual pricing vs MSRP is probably the biggest factor, but real and rapid improvement in the products also contributes. I know I've put off buying an EV van because I know that better options will be coming within the next 18 months.
If you look just at Teslas, they go further and charge faster on smaller batteries (higher energy densities). These batteries cost less and will last far longer. And Tesla uses an older battery tech than Chinese companies use so, in fact, batteries have improved far more. And with sodium ion, there is about to be a massive improvement over the next few years.
Also HW4 likely unlocks significant self-driving performance that the earlier hardware stack cannot accommodate, and will support features that are yet to be released for a longer period of time.
Which is all to say: looks to me that the progress is significant.
Assuming you care about self driving enough. That's a big premium to pay for that alone. Fine if that works for you but I can't imagine that being a reason for many.
Getting a new battery or newer design battery is probably much more of a driving factor
Cars don’t need to be better, customers only need to think so.
Just look at the smartphone market.
The new redesign coming out next year addresses this with a huge battery size increase.
the teslas are newish, with new parts and better sound suppression. they also improve marginally in efficiency every year. so the 2023 will have slightly better mechanicals than the 2021 etc.
not too different ... they are very different. much improved. go read a review comparing them.
how much different is today's durango from last year's or here lemme remind you durango hasn't been updated in 15 (count them!) FIFTEEN years. other zombie gas models are out there too.
FYI the Bolt is back, at least for a limited run. [1]
1: https://news.gm.com/home.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2025/o...
> ICE are stagnant. They retain their value because they're not improving at all.
This doesn't make sense. As already pointed out, the reason computers lose value is because the same money can buy something that does the job better (faster, lighter, etc). ICE don't retain value because they're not improving; they retain value because they still do the same job X years later.
EVs, meanwhile, are losing value even though the same money as a used EV can't buy anything that actually does the job better, as pointed out earlier in the thread. So there must be something else in play (such as battery degradation lowering value of EVs quicker than engine wear & tear lowers value of ICEs).
Likewise US and rest-of-world are different markets because of trade barriers.
Within the EV market segment, the resale value may be plummeting because new car prices are declining because of improved technology and higher volume. Someone who is replacing their EV or looking for a new one already has the required charging infrastructure, otherwise they wouldn't be looking. But this price drop affects only other EV buyers, because ICE buyers cannot take advantage of it.
This insulation lasts only as long as the price differential between them remains less than the capital costs of getting a L2 charger and associated electrical upgrades.
Why is charging at slow speed at home such an issue for you?
So, while the batteries may last 800,000 km, people start to discount the replacement cost before they even hit 200,000 km.
Consumers do not have even experience yet to value used EVs properly. It is a great time to be a used EV buyer.
I'd argue one reason ICE are "stagnant" are because they're "good enough" and any potential improvements required expensive R&D and manufacturing changes, for results that purchasers won't change their buying decision for. Maybe Toyata could make an ICE for the Camry that was 5% more efficient, but few people who were about to buy someone else's equivalent car will choose a Camry instead based on such a marginal improvement.
I think phones are a good current example of this. I have felt zero need to upgrade from my iPhone 13, because the "improvements" since it was new are of zero interest or value to me. I'm quite likely to do a battery replacement on this one instead of upgrading to a new iPhone any time soon. (And the only reason I bought the iPhone13 was to get the backside lidar, I was perfectly happy with the XR I used before that.)
There's no denying that ICE Engines have been around for a long time, relative to EVs. A mature technology means that any low-hanging fruit for performance improvements was found a long time ago. Remaining gains require the expensive R&D for marginal improvements that you mention.
It's not that they're "good enough" - any consumer who can do the sums would prefer a 20% better price/performance, always. It's just that such improvements are not there to be had in ICE vehicles. There is no rush to improve them, as you said.
And therefor the performance of a new ICE vehicle, 5 year old vehicle or 10 year old vehicle is well-understood, predictable. Both in terms of what the tech was when it was built, and how it has aged. EVs are less so in both of these dimensions. e.g. I would have reasonable confidence in the durability of an EV battery for a 2025 model, but much less so for a 2015 model. They're just not the same.
My first thought for sure. Especially because vehicles are getting demonstrably larger and heavier again in the US.
Sure if you ignore all the safety improvements made to driving over the last 40 years...
vehicle safety improvements are one of the primary motivators (for me) to drive new cars. driving is dangerous and i want the best odds when the inevitable occurs
Kind of the worst of all worlds sort of technology
EROI for biodiesel is well above 1:1 from what I can tell. Please elaborate on your sources.
You forgot, "and pollutes like crazy."
The environmental calculus of driving a new car, versus driving a 40 year old diesel engine is challenging, I admit. Moreso if you are distilling your own fuel. I would bet that a gross polluter (as California calls them) from 40 years ago are probably a net loss compared to a 20 year old ICE today.
EV are progressing fast so they lose value quick, like a laptop of the late 90s. Not quite as bad, but in those times, your computer was worth next to nothing in less than a year.
ICE are stagnant. They retain their value because they're not improving at all.