I understood your point quite clearly, TYVM. But your example isn’t what I’m talking about. In your example, it’s obvious which car most people would prefer.
Please look at the example I included - $25k car with 125 mile range vs $35k car with 250 mile range. I believe there is a market for the shorter range, at the right (i.e. lower) price point.
I’d include pictures for the marketers, but I can’t draw worth beans. 
–Peter
If such a market is significant, then the automaker with the more efficient technology will make and sell the same 125 mile range car for $20K.
Tech matters.
That’s not the way it works. A manufacturer, especially of large capital items, has to pick and choose which segments to compete in. The days of “General” motors is over. Even Ford and Chrysler have had to decide where to compete and where to exit.
Let’s pretend for a moment that Tesla is the most efficient manufacturer. Even if, they can’t cover every base on the roulette wheel; some numbers/colors are going to be covered by others, especially if they elect not to go head-to-head with Tesla.
There is some sweet spot for each pricing level, above which consumers just won’t go - because they can’t, and even if the range was 500 miles it doesn’t matter to them. On the other side, there is some price point below which some consumers won’t go, just because. I won’t drive a Chevrolet, you see.
Now that the market is dividing - as both albaby and I said it would - it is fracturing into many splinters, with sporty sedans and SUVs and mommy-vans and pick-up trucks and such. Tesla can’t play every position, and won’t. The trick will be to identify those with the largest potential (as they have when the market was immature) and grow into adjacent markets as they are able , but not to try being all things to all people. And that includes being “the most efficient manufacturer” but ignoring certain market segments because they don’t have the infrastructure or capability to handle it.
I agree with that, many people would buy the $25k car over the $35k car. BUT, the other issue is that the manufacturer of the more efficient EVs can sell the the 250 mi range car for less than $35k due to their higher efficiency.
Manufacturer 1 - 312 Wh/mi (Toyota) - 125 mi range, ~40kWh, $6.2k for battery.
Manufacturer 2 - 245 Wh/mi - 250 mi range - ~61kWh, $9.3k for battery.
[these are real numbers, I looked them up]
If manufacturer 2 wanted to they could sell the equivalent car, the only difference being 250 mi range instead of 125 mi range, for under $5k more. So the real-world (due to efficiency differences) may be $24.9k for the 125 mi range EV versus $29.9k for the 250 mi range EV. And if manufacturer 2 were even more aggressive, they could choose to forego all profit on the battery and only sell the longer range vehicle for ~$3k more!
Also, the more efficient manufacturer could simply make their own 125 mi range car for less than $25k. Call it “standard range” or whatever.
Efficiency counts for a lot. That’s because for EVs, part of the lower efficiency cost is borne by the manufacturer (more battery for an equivalent vehicle) and part is borne by the consumer (higher electric bill). For ICE, the lower efficiency cost is borne solely by the consumer, and in many cases, lower efficiency is a cost savings for the manufacturer. That’s yet another way the EV business is different than the ICE business.
While efficiency matters, it’s important to bear in mind that the “fuel economy” of vehicles isn’t just a factor of the “efficiency” of the batteries. Trivial example - the Tesla Model Y performance version has a lower efficiency than the Model Y LR version (276 Wh/M vs. 304 Wh/M) - not because there’s “less efficient” batteries in the performance version, but because it has more powerful motors that are both heavier and use power differently than the LR version.
Tesla’s vehicles run a wide gamut from 255 Wh/mile (the RWD Model 3) to 370 Wh/Mile (the Model X Plaid 22").
The bigger the car, the lower fuel economy it will have (other things being equal), even if the batteries are the same - the weight of the car and the (often) different aerodynamics for a larger vehicle will bring that number down.
So we’re down to discussing the actual difference in price. I’m not up on actual costs, and have no desire to be. So I won’t get into that.
Instead, I’ll point out that consumers don’t care one whit about the cost of the motor in their car. (Again, a relative handful of the geekiest of car geeks excepted.) Investors might sort of care, to the extent it affects corporate profits. The car maker management should care a lot. But consumers - nope. I’ve never heard a consumer say they were thinking about getting a Hemi engine in their Charger, but the base 6 cylinder engine was so much cheaper for the company to produce. No, they say the car with the Hemi was too expensive, so they bought the car with the 6 banger.
The same thinking will apply to EVs. The car with the 250 mile range cost too much, so they bought the cheaper car with a shorter range.
I’d also point out that if a car maker is trying to make a car that can be sold at a lower price point, they’re not just going to use a less expensive drive train, but they’ll almost certainly put a less expensive car around that drive train. So in the real world, the price difference between a shorter and longer range EV is likely to be much more than the difference in drive train costs.
—Peter
We’ve gotten deep in the weeds here. The assertion I made is that Toyota is delaying their big EV push in the USA until they have more efficient vehicles. And my reasoning is that they wouldn’t be able to compete due to more efficient almost identical vehicles from other manufacturers undercutting their pricing.
Think, for example, an Accord EV versus a Camry EV. They are roughly equivalent vehicles, same size, same amenities, similar style, etc. Let’s say the “LX” model has 150 mi range, and the “EX” model has 250 mi range, and the “Limited” model has 350 mi range. Within those types of trims, if Toyota wants to compete right now, their vehicles will cost more. But in 2025/6, when Toyota has better, more efficient, designs, then they will be able to compete.
It is quite clear that “performance” versions of vehicles (like the model Y performance) will have lower efficiency. And it is quite clear that larger vehicles (for example, model X versus model Y) will have lower efficiency. And it is quite clear that higher trims come with higher prices. And it is quite clear that fancier drive trains usually have a fancier stuff around them. But the only comparison I am making is between like vehicles, same size, roughly same style, same amenities, etc.
It is the way it works if you are following the thread. The observation is that the Toyota BEV gets less out of its battery than most other competitors. The premise is that Toyota can make a $25K car with a 125 mile range while others can make the same car for $20K. If a lot of people are buying Toyota’s car, chances are those other manufacturers will join the competition at a lower price. Not sure what the rules of capitalism are in Goofy World but that’s pretty much how it works in this universe.
The free market abhors a monopoly.
Yes. And my assertion is that they don’t need to wait for better efficiency if they can deliver a car with the current level of efficiency at a MSRP lower than the price of their more efficient competition.
There is a benefit of getting into the EV game sooner rather than waiting.
—Peter
Of course. They can choose to do that if they’re willing to accept a lower profit margin than their more efficient competitors.
Not necessarily.
Sure, in theory a more efficient manufacturer can exactly match Toyota’s car with a slightly lower cost. If my batteries are 10% more efficient, and Toyota comes out with a car that has a 253 mile range, while mine has a 278 mile range, I could theoretically retool my car to a smaller battery and hit that same 253 miles at a lower price.
But in reality? I’m probably going to keep my 278 miles, Toyota will keep their 253 miles, and consumers are likely to be more or less indifferent while we compete on styling and features and branding and other things. They generally have been indifferent when it comes to fuel economy broadly, except in times of extremely high gas prices - and even then, consider the record.
That’s not to say there isn’t a baseline of competence that Toyota will have to be able to execute in order to enter a now-crowded EV market. But I don’t think they’re going to sweat it too much if their battery tech isn’t first-in-class at first.
If the efficiency difference were only 10% then I would agree, it would hardly make a difference. But the efficiency difference is 25% right now (Tesla and Hyundai are at about 250 Wh/mi, while Toyota is at 312 Wh/mi.) and that’s a big difference when batteries comprise such a large percentage of costs to build the car.
But that’s only right now, in ~24 months, Toyota will have their new generation of EVs out and they will surely be competitive with regards to overall efficiency.
Do you have a link to that? I tried to find that figure, but the reviews and EPA site for Toyota’s BEV show a much better efficiency than that. EPA rates it as having virtually the same fuel efficiency as the Model Y.
Replying rather than editing the above - the EPA site appears to be janked. It shows the two vehicles having (basically) the same efficiency, but the bZ4X is also shown with a range of 250 miles compared to the Model Y’s 330 miles - even though they have roughly the same size battery pack. Other reviews (like Edmunds’) express disappointment with the cars’ highway mileage. Weird - I wonder why the EPA figures are inconsistent?
I apologize for trying to bring reality into the direction you prefer the thread to take.
This is the site I’ve been using, it seems to be the most comprehensive. I just eyeballed the numbers, so I could be off a bit. But I’ve seen discussions about EVs out there discuss the Toyota efficiency being [surprisingly] on the low side. After all, it is Toyota that popularized putting electric batteries in a model of their car!
That one seems janked too. It shows the bZ4X as having almost exactly the same efficiency as the Hyundai Ioniq 5 (which is one of the vehicles it’s similar to). But that’s only because it lists the battery size for the Toyota as being 64 kwh (it’s actually 71).
But even if you adjust, they’re still within 10% of the Ioniq 5 or the Kia EV6.
I think one likely reason for the discrepancy is the difficulty in assessing the usable battery size for these vehicles. Apparently (after a little digging), while the bZ4X has a 71 kwh battery, it has a huge “buffer” before getting down to zero - so the usable battery size is allegedly closer to 64 kwh, which is probably why that number was used. Which would make the battery very efficient in terms of electrons → miles, but very inefficient in terms of “gas tank size” —> battery size. So the fuel operating cost would be comparable to the top brands (electrons per mile), but the range is lower.
But again - it’s not like Kia or Hyundai would rework their cars to undercut Toyota on price by shrinking the battery. If the EV6 gets around 250 miles per charge, and the bZ4x only gets 220 miles, I think that’s a small enough delta that the automakers aren’t going to change their models to adapt.
For a decent portion, they will choose the larger one, but the difference isn’t gigantic, it’s the difference between an ICE car that gets 21mpg and 25mpg. (Not a perfect comparison, I admit.) Yes, that difference will sway a fair number of consumers. But I suspect styling, brand, dealer experience, color, trim, and inside accoutrements will be more important for most.
That’s probably true, or will eventually be true for EVs. But right now, when they do the surveys, it seems like “range anxiety” always appears very high up on the list of consumer concerns. And, the consumers appear to be choosing models with longer range over models with shorter range (lots of model 3/y, ioniq LR, and fewer Leaf, Mini, id.4, etc).