https://windsorstar.com/commodities/energy/electric-vehicles/ev-transition-trouble-transport-canada-pauses-rebate-program?tbref=hp
Oooooof. Would hate to be a dealer with a bunch of unsold EVs enroute.
Subsidizing EVs was always a stupid idea. Perfectly fine with it leaving and having that money used for something more useful.
Putting aside the debate of whether EV credits are worthwhile/necessary, I never agreed with Canada's credits being solely based on the price of the car. In the States it's linked to your individual/household income which makes far more sense. If you take a drive around the upper middle class suburbs here in the GMA where housing starts around $1 million, probably close to 1 on 2-3 houses have either a plug-in hybrid or EV. That's a lot of subsidies going to people who don't really need them, and would have purchased an EV even without the subsidies because that's what they liked and wanted.
If EV adoption were a priority, that money should have gone to charging infrastructure in the city where people live in apartments with no chargers or simply don't have parking at all. That's a massive barrier to ownership that has barely been addressed yet. There's almost no barriers to ownership for upper middle class people in the suburbs, and there arguably hasn't been for years, yet the subsidies have continued to pour into that group's pockets.
Quote from: Blizzard on Jan 14, 2025, 06:30 PMPutting aside the debate of whether EV credits are worthwhile/necessary, I never agreed with Canada's credits being solely based on the price of the car. In the States it's linked to your individual/household income which makes far more sense. If you take a drive around the upper middle class suburbs here in the GMA where housing starts around $1 million, probably close to 1 on 2-3 houses have either a plug-in hybrid or EV. That's a lot of subsidies going to people who don't really need them, and would have purchased an EV even without the subsidies because that's what they liked and wanted.
If EV adoption were a priority, that money should have gone to charging infrastructure in the city where people live in apartments with no chargers or simply don't have parking at all. That's a massive barrier to ownership that has barely been addressed yet.
There's almost no barriers to ownership for upper middle class people in the suburbs, and there arguably hasn't been for years, yet the subsidies have continued to pour into that group's pockets.
Agreed...just a bunch of yuppies virtue signaling on my dime ;D
Invest in the infrastructure and technology to make the cars actually make sense for the masses and adoption will follow.
Quote from: Blizzard on Jan 14, 2025, 06:30 PMPutting aside the debate of whether EV credits are worthwhile/necessary, I never agreed with Canada's credits being solely based on the price of the car. In the States it's linked to your individual/household income which makes far more sense. If you take a drive around the upper middle class suburbs here in the GMA where housing starts around $1 million, probably close to 1 on 2-3 houses have either a plug-in hybrid or EV. That's a lot of subsidies going to people who don't really need them, and would have purchased an EV even without the subsidies because that's what they liked and wanted.
If EV adoption were a priority, that money should have gone to charging infrastructure in the city where people live in apartments with no chargers or simply don't have parking at all. That's a massive barrier to ownership that has barely been addressed yet. There's almost no barriers to ownership for upper middle class people in the suburbs, and there arguably hasn't been for years, yet the subsidies have continued to pour into that group's pockets.
So give the rebate to someone who is lower income? Ummm, should I be the one tell you these people don't exactly have a whole lot of income to buy an EV, little one a car worth $40k. Or live in a house with a charger.
It should have always been something that consumers buy on merit and not because they got a $10k rebate.
If the government wanted to incentivize EV ownership properly, the subsidies should go to areas where there's barriers to entry. The main barriers to entry are cost and lack of charging. While the subsidies would never be useful to actual "low income" people, they would be more useful and drive more change if allocated to people earning let's say $50-100k/year, than people earning $150-200k+/year. If someone in the second group wants an EV, they'll just buy one, whereas in the first group, the cost might be more of an issue.
I disagree with your second point... yes, a rebate is one of the factors that have pushed people to buy an EV, but it's just one of the factors and the others are merit-based. I've never heard of anyone who's bought an EV and thinks it's a POS and bought it JUST because of the subsidy. If that were the case they would've just bought a gas car for the same price. People who buy EVs generally like them for various reasons other than the subsidy.
Quote from: Blizzard on Jan 14, 2025, 06:30 PMIf EV adoption were a priority, that money should have gone to charging infrastructure in the city where people live in apartments with no chargers or simply don't have parking at all. That's a massive barrier to ownership that has barely been addressed yet. There's almost no barriers to ownership for upper middle class people in the suburbs, and there arguably hasn't been for years, yet the subsidies have continued to pour into that group's pockets.
This! As well as more fast charging stations... that actually work!! ;)
Quote from: Blizzard on Jan 15, 2025, 09:10 PMIf the government wanted to incentivize EV ownership properly, the subsidies should go to areas where there's barriers to entry. The main barriers to entry are cost and lack of charging. While the subsidies would never be useful to actual "low income" people, they would be more useful and drive more change if allocated to people earning let's say $50-100k/year, than people earning $150-200k+/year. If someone in the second group wants an EV, they'll just buy one, whereas in the first group, the cost might be more of an issue.
I disagree with your second point... yes, a rebate is one of the factors that have pushed people to buy an EV, but it's just one of the factors and the others are merit-based. I've never heard of anyone who's bought an EV and thinks it's a POS and bought it JUST because of the subsidy. If that were the case they would've just bought a gas car for the same price. People who buy EVs generally like them for various reasons other than the subsidy.
I know someone who traded in their RAV4 Hybrid for that VW ID CUV thingy. Worst decision he ever made and one of the big contributors for him to buy it was the rebate, in fact if the rebate wasn't present he would not have bought it. The VW has been in the shop for weeks/months waiting for parts to repair it, and it hasn't really ever worked right.
Read that a few car makers are going to offer their own "rebate" for their EVs, list that I can remember was Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, GM and Ford maybe. All of those makers have EVs sitting in inventory unable to sell even with the old rebate. I would be willing to bet the number of EVs that turn a profit for the manufacturer are less than the ones that do make a profit.
Government brought these rebates under the guise of it being good for the environment, but as we know the true environmental costs to build and EV and power it is not a strong argument and if they wanted to do something to impact the environment they could have spent that money a lot more productively.
I sort of feel like part of the reason why compact and subcompact cars are limited is due to the push of EVs. Let me explain, when you develop an EV or a lineup of EVs it's very expensive and they don't sell through overly well in the long term. Sure there are examples of some of them being in huge demand out of the gate and then a year or less later they are reducing the price massively. Resulting in lower profits as the cost of those EVs lose money for the manufacturer for every one they produce. Which leads them to lower the number of lower profit "normal" cars, which typically were the cheaper compact and subcompact cars. Even though those cars might make some profit, they can't justify spending on those when they have to produce the more profitable offers that typically are bigger CUVs and other vehicles in order to offset the losses they incur due to their EV range.
There is the whole EPA targets and what not, but that combined with the push of EVs means car makers are building EVs to meet the EPA targets instead of making smaller compact vehicles that are better on fuel.
You might say, that's not what people want and you would be somewhat right. But I would argue the demand for these vehicles in the used market would indicate that there is untapped demand.
Regardless, I think governments should never have tried to influence the expansion of EVs and it should have come from the market and on merit.
Quote from: Blizzard on Jan 15, 2025, 09:10 PMIf the government wanted to incentivize EV ownership properly, the subsidies should go to areas where there's barriers to entry. The main barriers to entry are cost and lack of charging. While the subsidies would never be useful to actual "low income" people, they would be more useful and drive more change if allocated to people earning let's say $50-100k/year, than people earning $150-200k+/year. If someone in the second group wants an EV, they'll just buy one, whereas in the first group, the cost might be more of an issue.
I disagree with your second point... yes, a rebate is one of the factors that have pushed people to buy an EV, but it's just one of the factors and the others are merit-based. I've never heard of anyone who's bought an EV and thinks it's a POS and bought it JUST because of the subsidy. If that were the case they would've just bought a gas car for the same price. People who buy EVs generally like them for various reasons other than the subsidy.
EV purchases nose dive or tank without incentives. The data from US, Canada and other countries proves this.
The subsidy is more important than think. And yes, even rich people love saving $10k.
Quote from: Johnnymac on Jan 17, 2025, 05:00 PMQuote from: Blizzard on Jan 15, 2025, 09:10 PMIf the government wanted to incentivize EV ownership properly, the subsidies should go to areas where there's barriers to entry. The main barriers to entry are cost and lack of charging. While the subsidies would never be useful to actual "low income" people, they would be more useful and drive more change if allocated to people earning let's say $50-100k/year, than people earning $150-200k+/year. If someone in the second group wants an EV, they'll just buy one, whereas in the first group, the cost might be more of an issue.
I disagree with your second point... yes, a rebate is one of the factors that have pushed people to buy an EV, but it's just one of the factors and the others are merit-based. I've never heard of anyone who's bought an EV and thinks it's a POS and bought it JUST because of the subsidy. If that were the case they would've just bought a gas car for the same price. People who buy EVs generally like them for various reasons other than the subsidy.
I know someone who traded in their RAV4 Hybrid for that VW ID CUV thingy. Worst decision he ever made and one of the big contributors for him to buy it was the rebate, in fact if the rebate wasn't present he would not have bought it. The VW has been in the shop for weeks/months waiting for parts to repair it, and it hasn't really ever worked right.
Read that a few car makers are going to offer their own "rebate" for their EVs, list that I can remember was Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, GM and Ford maybe. All of those makers have EVs sitting in inventory unable to sell even with the old rebate. I would be willing to bet the number of EVs that turn a profit for the manufacturer are less than the ones that do make a profit.
Government brought these rebates under the guise of it being good for the environment, but as we know the true environmental costs to build and EV and power it is not a strong argument and if they wanted to do something to impact the environment they could have spent that money a lot more productively.
I sort of feel like part of the reason why compact and subcompact cars are limited is due to the push of EVs. Let me explain, when you develop an EV or a lineup of EVs it's very expensive and they don't sell through overly well in the long term. Sure there are examples of some of them being in huge demand out of the gate and then a year or less later they are reducing the price massively. Resulting in lower profits as the cost of those EVs lose money for the manufacturer for every one they produce. Which leads them to lower the number of lower profit "normal" cars, which typically were the cheaper compact and subcompact cars. Even though those cars might make some profit, they can't justify spending on those when they have to produce the more profitable offers that typically are bigger CUVs and other vehicles in order to offset the losses they incur due to their EV range.
There is the whole EPA targets and what not, but that combined with the push of EVs means car makers are building EVs to meet the EPA targets instead of making smaller compact vehicles that are better on fuel.
You might say, that's not what people want and you would be somewhat right. But I would argue the demand for these vehicles in the used market would indicate that there is untapped demand.
Regardless, I think governments should never have tried to influence the expansion of EVs and it should have come from the market and on merit.
Not so sure that compact and subcompact cars are dying because of EVs... I think it's mostly due to consumer preferences. Granted, there are some people who still want a small economical car and nothing more, but the majority of the buying public seems want crossovers these days for the higher seating position, truck-like appearance, and AWD. I know so many people who will not even remotely consider a vehicle that doesn't have AWD, despite the fact that 25 years ago the majority of cars didn't have AWD, and despite the fact that in the city, roads are actually snow-covered and difficult maybe 3-4 times a year. Also, car companies are for-profit businesses that are looking to maximize profits. They're not charities and they don't "owe" us small cars, they're going to develop and produce what makes them more money. And it seems to be working as far as I can tell.
But I agree with you on the lack of small cars. It's worrisome how there's almost no cheap small cars anymore. I started driving not THAT long ago and my first car was a Kia Rio that I bought for $6,000 and drove through university. It wasn't fancy but was economical and dead reliable, I couldn't have asked for more from a first car. I can't imagine being a high school/university student nowadays and trying to buy an affordable used car. I feel like everything that will last 5 years without major work would be at least double that price. Not sure what people with limited budgets will drive in the future.
Back to EVs, sorry to hear about your friend but I wonder what sort of due diligence he did before purchasing his EV. I can't imagine how someone would buy a car just for the rebate, without evaluating the merits/pitfalls of a car. An EV is great if it fits your lifestyle and driving habits, but if it doesn't it can be a huge pain in the butt. Anyone considering one should ensure that their driving habits/parking situation/charging situation would work with an EV at least 95% of the time, with a backup option or another car for that last 5%.
If manufacturers are truly and fully about profits, why are so many companies building EVs? How many EVs generate profits for the manufacturers, because I seem to hear a lot about how Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, and that Volvo EV brand are hemorrhaging money on each one they make. This ties into my thinking that the push for EVs has reduced the amount of selection for compacts and subcompact vehicles, not because they weren't profitable they were just less so, but the manufacturers can't afford to develop and make them because they have this EV money pit they have to account for and that means the lower profit generators have to be limited.
Imagine being a restaurant, and let's say government stepped in and said by 2035 they must be at least 50% vegan options, that won't impact big sellers on the menu that everyone orders like the burger or chicken fingers, but it could take out some of the more unpopular dishes, especially when the profit to sell the vegan food is higher, the actual demand is lower, and there is much more wasted at the end of each day due to spoilage. In this situation, they might not sell that less popular dish not because people didn't order it or that it wasn't profitable, just that they have to account for the vegan requirements set in place. (Please note that I am. It vegan, LOL)
I know some of the answer to this, one of the main reasons are the targets put in place by governments for pollution and fuel economy targets. If you take that out and let the market decide I think it would probably stay about the same as today as far as the number of EVs bought but there would be a whole heap less new ones developed, built, and sold.
Quote from: Johnnymac on Feb 23, 2025, 03:03 PMIf manufacturers are truly and fully about profits, why are so many companies building EVs?
They are being forced into it by government. Plain and simple. If they don't play along, they'll get excluded from certain markets or have to pay heavy fines. California comes to mind...A market that's larger than all of Canada.
I firmly believe, today, that the best idea moving forward is hydrogen in plain old ICE engines as Toyota is testing and racing. Instead of burning gasoline it burns hydrogen. So all the vroomy engine sounds we love remain along with the performance. Toyota has tested this in their V8 and made 455hp..only slightly less than the gasoline variant.
This makes the most sense if everyone gets on board. The infrastructure is no more onerous than an EV one and it removes a key barrier to EV adoption: no need to own a home since you'll be still going for fill ups.
As for hydrogen most every nation can produce it, it doesn't require much in the way exotic materials and minerals, and it can not only be stored and container-ized but it can also be shipped. These ships exist already BTW.
So for me, this seems like the most practical solution moving forward. Perhaps not in what's left in my lifetime, but moving forward. Either this or synthetic gasoline.
If only the general public didn't immediately think of the Hindenburg.
As Tortoise stated, there are some hurdles for hydrogen ICE engines, but I agree that it would likely be easier adoption than full EVs.
Quote from: Johnnymac on Feb 24, 2025, 04:56 PMAs Tortoise stated, there are some hurdles for hydrogen ICE engines, but I agree that it would likely be easier adoption than full EVs.
I think what Tortoise stated is (mostly) nonsense these days, isn't it? I don't recall hearing much on the topic when Toyota, Honda and Hyundai released their hydrogen cars in the last few years?
Does GenZ even know what the Hindenberg is? LOL 😆
Quote from: RRocket on Feb 26, 2025, 03:47 AMQuote from: Johnnymac on Feb 24, 2025, 04:56 PMAs Tortoise stated, there are some hurdles for hydrogen ICE engines, but I agree that it would likely be easier adoption than full EVs.
I think what Tortoise stated is (mostly) nonsense these days, isn't it? I don't recall hearing much on the topic when Toyota, Honda and Hyundai released their hydrogen cars in the last few years?
Does GenZ even know what the Hindenberg is? LOL 😆
I'm sure there's a Tik Tok of it somewhere LOL!
I suspect it's totally nonsense these days. Doesn't mean the general public will react rationally.