EVs still require nearly as much servicing as ICE cars: they still have suspension, body, brakes, wheels. This article is another in a line of cargo-cult leaps defining anything Tesla does as somehow inherent to EVs in general. See also the apparent linkage between self-driving and EVs (unrelated, except both are done by Tesla).
Edit: I agree that dealerships are mostly obsolete, but the internet is what really kills them off - customers can now deal directly with the manufacturer.
I think the idea is that Tesla is showing it can be done - and that might finally break the dealership monopoly, or at least force them to be more competitive.
> Unlike gasoline cars, Tesla cars require no traditional oil changes, fuel filters, spark plug replacements or emission checks. As electric cars, even brake pad replacements are rare because regenerative braking returns energy to the battery, significantly reducing wear on brakes.
The real question is "how often does your car have to be taken somewhere for servicing?"
Oil changes, by far, are the biggest differentiator here, assuming you don't do them yourself. That's every ~5000 miles (using synthetics you might go 7500-10,000) which is easily twice a year. (Intake air filters aren't quite as frequent but also need periodic replacement, and are specific to ICE.)
Inspection is every year or every other year in most U.S. states, regardless of powertrain. Not having emissions included in inspection just saves you money, not the number of visits.
Things like fuel filters and spark plugs are much less frequent - many spark plugs go 100K miles.
Brakes could be a bit of a differentiator, but really those are something you tend to replace at your inspection, so can be rolled into your annual.
Given all that, mechanics (you don't have to go to a dealership) could probably be reduced - places that can handle inspections and anything both EV and ICE powertrain vehicles require could be the norm, with a gradual reduction of the oil-change focused places as ICE cars faded in popularity.
Ironically, the trend with EV is that you are more likely to have to go to the brand-specific repair shop cough dealership than you would with ICE, where the knowledge of how to service just about any ICE car has been well-distributed (with some exceptions of brand-specific things, but even ICUs tend to have published information available to independent mechanics.)
I agree about engine oil being a differentiator. I disagree about >10k miles with synthetics (maybe valid only under ideal circumstances, such as long trips, driver only, nice weather, good fuel ...).
For the rest of the lubricants (e.g. gearboxes), I can't really tell, but these normally last e.g. 5 years on an ICE and are not that expensive (except some funky auto transmissions).
Air filter is probably the cheapest and the easiest thing to replace on an ICE. Literally a 5 min job (washing your hands included :)).
Totally agree about annual inspections (of which breaks, suspension and lights checks are probably the most important).
I would seriously doubt the claimed brake fluid longevity on EVs. The biggest problem with brake fluid is that it is hygroscopic and you have to replace it e.g. every 3 years.
I strongly agree and sympathize with the last one about being forced to the brand-specific/dealership garage. I have the feeling this has become trendy for all manufacturers to build a "subscription" based business model.
Pretty much all the repairs I've had to do on my cars would still need to happen on EVs.
In fact, with the exception of a clutch, every time any car I've owned has broken down its been a part which is common on EVs.
EVs still have dampers, ball joints, springs, brakes, wheel bearings, steering alignment. They still have power steering motors, lights, wing mirrors, windscreens. Those are all things I've replaced at some point.
EVs still corrode. EVs still have design flaws which mean water leaks into the cabin. EVs still have wiring issues (perhaps more!). EVs also weigh significantly more, which means the suspension has to work harder.
I'm sure EVs require _less_ maintenance (especially when they're less than 10 years old), and not having to do an annual/mileage based service is nice. But the idea that they're maintenance free is just nonsense. No car is.
> EVs still require nearly as much servicing as ICE cars
This is not true at all. My daily driving 2013 EV with 90k miles still has the original tires and brakes. There's no oil to change and only a handful of mechanical components. The only think I've had to service is the 12v battery.
You can get an 80K mile tread warranty, and you can use tires beyond warranty. Of course, that is in no way specific to the powertrain of the car (unless you're using your powertrain to do burnouts...)
EV tires are made from the kinds of rubber compounds that make the tire supplier say things like "you need this in what speed rating? based on the other specs I thought this was agricultural".
Commuting on glass smooth roads and driving with an egg under the throttle I can see 100k.
Is that true? Given the amount of torque Tesla can put to the tires, I would imagine it puts more wear and tear on the tires. Driving on highway means higher speed, which means higher temp to break down the rubber. Driving on local roads means a lot of stop and go which also break down the rubber.
I'm not trying to dispute what's being reported, just wondering about what tires they put on that would last 90-100K.
Your typical EV is rolling on a rock hard economy tire.
Tesla is an odd beast because they staked their reputation on performance and kind of actually have to back it up. And they chew through tires about as fast/slow as any other performance sedan. Or at least that's my impression. Tesla stuff is 10yr and a couple tax brackets outside of what I usually deal with.
Brakes hardly get used because of regenerative braking. I only brake once I'm below maybe 25 mph unless there's an obstacle or I'm in some sort of traffic that demands it. I don't have a tesla, but I've heard if you use the one pedal driving mode with the aggressive regen, the brakes may never need changing.
I imagine tires on a tesla would need to be serviced like any other sports car as they are definitely NOT using the sort of thing you'd find on a volt or leaf. My car came with "special" ev tires that are super hard and are inflated to 36 psi. My understanding is that a lot of the non sporty EVs have similar tires.
Other than needing to change the oil (and filters that are done at the same time) that is about what you would expect from an ICE. Okay, tires would be replaced, but as others have pointed that is about the rubber and the wear is identical.
I do wish other manufacturers had that option; they all have configurators on their sites. For example, the Ford Bronco has at least a dozen options[1] with a handful of choices for each. This is a classic CPQ use case. I want to be able to create a valid configuration, arrange payment, and have them drop off my car at the front door (or pick it up at a local dealer if I must, since they sometimes have to do the last steps of unpacking the car, filling fluids, etc). Even if it takes the factory ten weeks to deliver it.
One issue is that you're pretty much paying list price in that case. Generally speaking, if you're taking a car off a dealer lot that's been sitting there for a while you can probably knock something off. I've mostly bought new cars over the years but I don't think I've paid the sticker price.
> EVs still require nearly as much servicing as ICE cars
Not even close. I was just talking with my service guy at the local VW dealership. The e-Golfs that come in are usually there for a few broken things. But the service is almost negligible unless your counting tire rotations and wiper blade changes.
And regenerative braking has dramatically extended brake wear.
Replacement rates of brakes on electric-powered vehicles are probably on par with manual transmission vehicles, if the driver uses the engine to brake. Anecdote, but the brake pads on my old VW lasted 4+ years and 120k km, and changing them was almost trivial. A bigger issue is replacing brake fluid every two years, and electric vehicles are no different in that regard.
Most cars have electric power steering these days, and most transmissions and diffs have lifetime fluids, ie they never need changing, and it's pretty rare that they leak. Lack of engine oil is a big plus for electric cars, but not a major one when you consider that it only needs to be changed every 15k–20k km, or once a year.
The reason both are done by Tesla is that there's an economic reason to link electric cars with self-driving.
Electric cars are more expensive, depreciate like other cars, but have powertrains that go a lot more miles before wearing out. As long as these things are true, it makes sense to pile on the miles as fast as you can. Even at cost parity, if obsolescence reduces the car's value fast enough, you still want to rack up the miles to maximize the economic benefit of that powertrain. Self-driving taxis are a great way to do that.
There's a climate benefit too. It takes a long time to replace the entire fleet, if you're waiting for people to buy themselves new cars. The more people ride self-driving electric taxis, the faster we lower emissions.
Dealerships could have been a thing of the past many years ago. They’ve persisted because dealership owners are often the richest people in sparsely populated areas and have a lot of influence on local politicians. This in turn prevents outdated state laws forbidding car manufacturers from selling directly to the public from being repealed. See also, beverage distribution.
Dealerships provide a financial buffer around OEMs allowing them to run slimmer margins, spin production up and down slower, etc. They also provide a point of contact for the customer to complain to as needed (which has some value). As long as the overhead of the dealer system costs less than the benefit it confers it will still be used.
If the bean counters at GM thought it was cheaper to lobby to have laws repealed and do direct sales they'd have done it already.
> If that’s true repealing the laws will be no-op.
This doesn't quite follow; dealerships protected by the current laws might provide some value without providing as much value as the law allots to them. In that case, repeal would mean that dealerships continue existing, but become much less profitable.
Why are anti-monopoly laws outdated? I would rather have 10,000 moderately rich families in 10,000 towns across the US than 1 super rich guy. It is better for the economy, better for politics, basically better for everything, even the super rich guy because what's he going to do with the extra money? The laws for dealerships are doing what they were designed to do. Did something change that makes monopolies good now?
I recently bought a new car for the first time and the level of poor customer service, anti-consumer acts and outright trickery were appalling. Do they not depend on repeat customers?
At least if the dealership model disappears, it's the manufacturer's own reputation at stake, not whoever owns the franchise.
In the traditional dealer market, the quality of say Ford dealer A to Ford dealer B, is a MUCH bigger difference than the difference between brands. But this is something very hard to figure out.
I contend that even if Tesla made normal ICE vehicles, their no dealer strategy is a long term win. Dealers are horrible. The trickery to buy and sell a car is terrible.
Saturn had a great business model and I'm sad that they went under in 2009. There was no negotiating the price of a new car, which tended to make the relationship with the car salesman a bit better. (my mom sold cars for 20+ years, Saturn for a few of those).
Though, the dealers could still screw you on trade-ins or on selling used cars.
Pre-00s Saturn was great. Then the bean counters crushed them and they became just another badge. It will probably be a standard textbook corporate politics lesson for MBAs someday.
Yeah, "no haggle" dealers still have some other levers. I'd also point out that a lot of people want to negotiate because they at least think that they come out ahead as opposed to having to just pay sticker.
I don't love dealers and can't say my last experience about a decade ago was great. But it definitely helps if you don't need financing and are prepared to just donate your old clunker if you don't get offered enough.
I bought a "no haggle" car recently and there was a pretty aggressive sales pitch for the extended warranty, which we haggled about. I think from the dealer's point of view, the car price is what it is (I'm just going to ask for KBB price anyway), but they really want the service money.
I bought my last car from a dealer that wasn't super convenient to me because they had the vehicle I was looking for on their lot. They were very insistent I said hello to the service manager even though their location meant I was never going to take my car there.
Yes, I bought my car during COVID, so I was just thinking hurry up, I want to get out of your virus cave already! On the plus side, the masks meant I could stone face during the haggle.
It really depends on the brand, the better the brand the better the dealership(in my experience, with one exception).
- MG, absolutely shit experience, the salesman was literally trying to scam us by making up stuff that doesn't exist
- Nissan, Toyota, Citroen - garbage customer service, dealing with salespeople felt like being a tasty prey surrounded by lions
- Volkswagen - pretty good just.....cheap. like, the bare minimum of what I'd consider acceptable. Heavy push to upsell you stuff.
- Mercedes - best experience I had, actual friendly salespeople, didn't feel like I was being scammed, post-sales support was phenomenal, would seriously consider another Mercedes just for that
- Volvo - purchase experience was very good, haggled down a lot and it didn't seem like a huge deal, but we'll see about their post-purchase experience, have a service coming up and they've been trying to upsell me stuff already which I think is a bit dodgy. Meh, time will tell.
- Range Rover - despite being a luxury brand every single dealership of theirs treats the customer like a pest to get rid of. You know why? Because the average waiting time for a new RR is about 12 month+. They know they will sell cars no matter what,so why bother.
But yeah, obviously your milage will vary.
And there's one other thing - dealerships still have one good function. At least here in UK and EU it's the seller who sold you a product, so if something goes wrong your have your local dealership you can sue or pursue to make you whole. Would you do the same if it was a direct relationship with the manufacturer? If say, Volvo refuses to fix my car, can I go and sue Volvo? No, I'd use the entire strength of the customer protection system in this country to get the seller(the dealership) to fix my car, regardless of what the manufacturer says.
Owing to an affection for horsepower and some fortunate professional choices, I spent a long time driving higher-end cars (mostly from Germany).
The dealer experience when buying a BMW, say, is astonishingly easy and reasonable (IME) vs. the same process of visiting a "normal" dealer. I knew this intellectually, but when we were looking for a new car a few years ago, after I had "recovered" from my sports car mania, we looked at several conventional dealers including Ford and Mazda.
Holy CRAP those experiences were AWFUL. I mean just TERRIBLE. Creepy dealers who clearly thought they were going to put one over on us, skeevy and hamfisted attempts to rush a sale, the whole nine yards. It's just BANANAS that this persists.
(For the record, we ended up with a VW. At the time, it was kind of right after the whole scandal, and they were fairly motivated to sell cars, which worked to our benefit. And the GTI is a hell of a lot of fun while being (a) cheap and (b) practical. No word of it a lie, driving it is at least 80% as much fun as driving my old 911 was.)
Most people don't buy enough cars for repeat sales to matter. If you trade in your car for a new one every 3 years, and always go for the same brand it might matter. However if you sometimes buy GM, sometimes Toyota, then the dealer should assume that you won't be back because odds are you won't, and this is a common enough case that the dealer just assumes it for everyone. If there is reason for the dealer to believe you will be back to buy your next car you will get better service.
Worse for the dealer, everybody walks in having done their research. Most people know exactly how much the dealer paid for the car, and want it for that price leaving the dealer with nothing. There is thus no reason to treat the customer well when there isn't even any money to make. In fact the biggest dealers sell every car at a loss, making it up in factory incentives and post sales tactics which are bad for customer service, but what the customer really wants.
Most people don't buy enough cars to know what good sales actually would be. If you really want to know what good service is you need to average more than one car a month (sometimes it is every month, sometimes it is a large order every year). These customers are rare (always a business), but they do get a completely different experience as there is real reason to keep them happy.
For a dealer though sales are a distraction. They only sell cars at all because that is a cost of doing business to get the parts and service business. These are the real money maker. The first couple years they get everything (and the factory pays not the customer, always nice to tell someone there is no charge for major work). Many are trying to make themselves good places to go even after warranty is expired (that is reasonable prices).
The above applies to new cars only. Used car sales is completely different. (most new car dealers also make a ton of money on used car sales)
EVs are great for efficiency, sustainability, and the environment, but they're going to eliminate a ton of jobs all across the automotive industry. They require less repairs, no oil changes, less maintenance, no gas stations, etc.
There will be some kind of new maintenance taking up the old one. I'm thinking batteries and charging will be a big job maker. While in general frown upon job diminishing moves by corps, with EVs this is a natural evolution of the car industry and divorcing or distancing from the fossil fuel industry seems like a big win in my books.
The moving parts that are missing are all in a closed and lubricated environment. The moving parts that are more in the open and thus more pron to break are identical. A modern ICE with normal maintenance should easily outlast the body of the car.
My local community college has partnered with Tesla to offer an EV technician course.
There is nothing sustainable about putting so much CO2 into the air. Almost 50% comes from transportation. Some jobs simply have to go and will be replaced by other jobs.
Dealers make little money off sales these days. Basically just a finders fee if they sell you financial products. When it comes to ICE specific stuff dealerships basically only do warranty work. Engine specific stuff is a minority of warranty work because power-trains are generally much more dialed in (and last the warranty period) than the special HVAC flapper that has to be redesigned for some specific model to reduce space usage so they could fit a redesigned glove box without designing a new airbag mount. Indy mechanics are the ones replacing exhausts and head gaskets.
All mechanics do an easy 10:1 (probably closer to 50:1 ratio) of changing wear items compared to fixing leaks (the primary source of ICE maintenance). By the time 100k timing services and whatnot roll around most cars are in the hands of people who are taking them to independent mechanics for budgetary reasons. While the HN crowd can justify the cost of having that stuff done at the dealer for peace of mind your average person is taking those jobs to an independent.
The switch to EV is not going to strongly impact the kind of service the dealers do the most of. It's too close to call whether the reduction in the size of the warranty work ball and chain will be larger than the reduction in gravy timing jobs and exhaust repairs, in any case it's not a massive net difference.
The reason you see people on the Tesla and the Bolt forums (or HN) with their claims of insanely low maintenance costs per mile is selection bias. The early adopters have other cars for other tasks. They (mostly, I'm sure someone's done it) aren't renting the Uhaul moving trailer to put behind their Model 3 because they have other better options available. They tend to live in nice suburbs with nice roads and mostly commute with their EVs. With that kind of use most of these vehicles aren't wearing out fast. It's the closest thing a commuter car will get to a "church and bingo" usage pattern. When EVs get in the hands of the "rolling negative equity into a Dodge Journey/Nissan Altima" crowd and get used and maintained that way the maintenance costs are going to look a lot like the ICE vehicles they're replacing in that role.
> ICE specific stuff dealerships basically only do warranty work
Dealerships probably do quite a bit of oil and filter changes as part of annual service. Since every car needs those and many owners of new cars want to take it to the dealer (for whatever variety of reasons), they make a lot of money off these services.
I do all the maintenance on our family cars, subbing out only paint and tires. My electric LEAF has needed wiper blades and washer fluid in 20K miles and 6 years [it did need a warranty battery repair in year 4]. In that same time, my wife's CR-V (which is generally low maintenance among ICE cars) did about 30K miles and needed a clutch, a set of brake pads, a power steering pump, a belt tensioner and serpentine belt, an alternator, 6 oil changes, plus wiper blades and washer fluid.
Some of those were wear items (and last more than 5 years [clutch/alternator]), but the difference between an even traditionally considered low-maintenance/high-reliability ICE vehicle and a low-end electric was much greater than I expected. My parents' experience (with two electrics and a single diesel) is similar. The electric cars need much less intensive and much more predictable maintenance.
>Dealerships probably do quite a bit of oil and filter changes as part of annual service.
Those are typically break even or loss leader.
>my wife's CR-V (which is generally low maintenance among ICE cars) did about 30K miles and needed a clutch, a set of brake pads, a power steering pump, a belt tensioner and serpentine belt, an alternator, 6 oil changes, plus wiper blades and washer fluid.
And were you not doing your own maintenance would you be having a dealer do that stuff? Exactly.
No, I would be having a much less expensive independent mechanic doing that stuff. But I care about how much I spend on my cars.
Most of my friends seem to think "my car has a badge X on it; I always take it to the X dealership; as long as they charge me less than $1000 per visit, I don't think about it" which is crazy to me. They think $700 for a single-axle brake job is a reasonable price to pay. That's how dealerships eat because there's a lot more people who act that way than act my way.
I'm sorry but you don't understand how dealerships work. You seem to think the only amount of money they make is the difference between their price from the factory and the final price you pay on the invoice. I agree this number is small but that is not where the profit comes from. They make far more from the financing which today sees people getting 7 year loans to pay for a $65K SUV. They also make a ton from selling extended warranties and other add-ons, and they push this stuff aggressively (sadly). Additionally, they make quite a bit from reselling used cars. There is a lot of obfuscation in how much you get in rebates and knock-downs versus your car's "trade-in" value. The "real" acquisition cost of a used car is far lower than you might think. (One trip to a dealer's car auction will set you straight.) The markup on a used car can be far more than a new. They could sometimes make 25% or more plus they are still going to sell a lot of people extended warranties since the factory one is almost expired. Additionally, parts and service make quite a lot since, as you point out, upper middle class people "trust" the dealership and pay 3x the cost for most vehicle services. (Source: my dad has been selling cars for over 40 years)
Pretty much none (well I guess the salesman will have a harder time throwing in free oil changes to seal a deal) of the "time of sale" stuff is effected by the switch to EVs though which is why I didn't bother to cover it in depth or make a new vs used distinction.
Only a subset of service is affected. Yes, dealerships make a lot of money on service but they also waste a lot of bay-hours on warranty so it balances to a degree. Dealerships aren't so lean that that a reduction in service will sink their entire business model.
No one will miss dealers and that is entirely the fault of dealerships. An interesting business opportunity in their wake is to find a way to profit from a multi-brand test drive center. I'd love to drive 5 brands against each other - especially unfamiliar newer tech like electrics - without driving to five dealerships. As dealerships close, it will become even more difficult to decide on a car. Not every purchase or lease is as simple as Amazon.
Perhaps, but buy (including registration, 45 forms in triplicate, insurance, etc) and return with a week is difficult to do in practice. You are also at the mercy of the seller to accept the return, not argue the tires were used, the car was rained on, or any number of blocks.
I don’t know how representative this is of all dealerships, but This American Life ran an episode on a Long Island dealership struggling to fill the OEM quota of sales for the month. It’s greatly entertaining (and depressing):
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/513/129-cars
70 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 97.8 ms ] threadEdit: I agree that dealerships are mostly obsolete, but the internet is what really kills them off - customers can now deal directly with the manufacturer.
https://www.tesla.com/support/car-maintenance
> Unlike gasoline cars, Tesla cars require no traditional oil changes, fuel filters, spark plug replacements or emission checks. As electric cars, even brake pad replacements are rare because regenerative braking returns energy to the battery, significantly reducing wear on brakes.
Oil changes, by far, are the biggest differentiator here, assuming you don't do them yourself. That's every ~5000 miles (using synthetics you might go 7500-10,000) which is easily twice a year. (Intake air filters aren't quite as frequent but also need periodic replacement, and are specific to ICE.)
Inspection is every year or every other year in most U.S. states, regardless of powertrain. Not having emissions included in inspection just saves you money, not the number of visits.
Things like fuel filters and spark plugs are much less frequent - many spark plugs go 100K miles.
Brakes could be a bit of a differentiator, but really those are something you tend to replace at your inspection, so can be rolled into your annual.
Given all that, mechanics (you don't have to go to a dealership) could probably be reduced - places that can handle inspections and anything both EV and ICE powertrain vehicles require could be the norm, with a gradual reduction of the oil-change focused places as ICE cars faded in popularity.
Ironically, the trend with EV is that you are more likely to have to go to the brand-specific repair shop cough dealership than you would with ICE, where the knowledge of how to service just about any ICE car has been well-distributed (with some exceptions of brand-specific things, but even ICUs tend to have published information available to independent mechanics.)
For the rest of the lubricants (e.g. gearboxes), I can't really tell, but these normally last e.g. 5 years on an ICE and are not that expensive (except some funky auto transmissions).
Air filter is probably the cheapest and the easiest thing to replace on an ICE. Literally a 5 min job (washing your hands included :)).
Totally agree about annual inspections (of which breaks, suspension and lights checks are probably the most important).
I would seriously doubt the claimed brake fluid longevity on EVs. The biggest problem with brake fluid is that it is hygroscopic and you have to replace it e.g. every 3 years.
I strongly agree and sympathize with the last one about being forced to the brand-specific/dealership garage. I have the feeling this has become trendy for all manufacturers to build a "subscription" based business model.
In fact, with the exception of a clutch, every time any car I've owned has broken down its been a part which is common on EVs.
EVs still have dampers, ball joints, springs, brakes, wheel bearings, steering alignment. They still have power steering motors, lights, wing mirrors, windscreens. Those are all things I've replaced at some point.
EVs still corrode. EVs still have design flaws which mean water leaks into the cabin. EVs still have wiring issues (perhaps more!). EVs also weigh significantly more, which means the suspension has to work harder.
I'm sure EVs require _less_ maintenance (especially when they're less than 10 years old), and not having to do an annual/mileage based service is nice. But the idea that they're maintenance free is just nonsense. No car is.
This is not true at all. My daily driving 2013 EV with 90k miles still has the original tires and brakes. There's no oil to change and only a handful of mechanical components. The only think I've had to service is the 12v battery.
You can get an 80K mile tread warranty, and you can use tires beyond warranty. Of course, that is in no way specific to the powertrain of the car (unless you're using your powertrain to do burnouts...)
I have a mode 3 and with regenerative breaking you end up using your breaks a lot less.
Commuting on glass smooth roads and driving with an egg under the throttle I can see 100k.
I'm not trying to dispute what's being reported, just wondering about what tires they put on that would last 90-100K.
Tesla is an odd beast because they staked their reputation on performance and kind of actually have to back it up. And they chew through tires about as fast/slow as any other performance sedan. Or at least that's my impression. Tesla stuff is 10yr and a couple tax brackets outside of what I usually deal with.
I imagine tires on a tesla would need to be serviced like any other sports car as they are definitely NOT using the sort of thing you'd find on a volt or leaf. My car came with "special" ev tires that are super hard and are inflated to 36 psi. My understanding is that a lot of the non sporty EVs have similar tires.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-maintenance/how-old-and-dangerou....
[1] https://shop.ford.com/configure/bronco/model/customize/base
Not even close. I was just talking with my service guy at the local VW dealership. The e-Golfs that come in are usually there for a few broken things. But the service is almost negligible unless your counting tire rotations and wiper blade changes.
And regenerative braking has dramatically extended brake wear.
* Power steering fluid
* Transmission fluid
* Differential fluid
* Lubricating oil fluid
That's over 20L less toxic, potentially leaky fluid than most current cars use.
Electric cars are more expensive, depreciate like other cars, but have powertrains that go a lot more miles before wearing out. As long as these things are true, it makes sense to pile on the miles as fast as you can. Even at cost parity, if obsolescence reduces the car's value fast enough, you still want to rack up the miles to maximize the economic benefit of that powertrain. Self-driving taxis are a great way to do that.
There's a climate benefit too. It takes a long time to replace the entire fleet, if you're waiting for people to buy themselves new cars. The more people ride self-driving electric taxis, the faster we lower emissions.
Not true. I had a Leaf for 4 years and only had to rotate the tires and put in washer fluid. That's about 1 service visit a year.
At the same time I had a Subaru that needed two oil changes a year, in addition to tire rotations.
The brakes last much longer due to regenerative braking. (Basically, the motor slows the car down without using brake pads.)
Dealerships provide a financial buffer around OEMs allowing them to run slimmer margins, spin production up and down slower, etc. They also provide a point of contact for the customer to complain to as needed (which has some value). As long as the overhead of the dealer system costs less than the benefit it confers it will still be used.
If the bean counters at GM thought it was cheaper to lobby to have laws repealed and do direct sales they'd have done it already.
This doesn't quite follow; dealerships protected by the current laws might provide some value without providing as much value as the law allots to them. In that case, repeal would mean that dealerships continue existing, but become much less profitable.
At least if the dealership model disappears, it's the manufacturer's own reputation at stake, not whoever owns the franchise.
I contend that even if Tesla made normal ICE vehicles, their no dealer strategy is a long term win. Dealers are horrible. The trickery to buy and sell a car is terrible.
Though, the dealers could still screw you on trade-ins or on selling used cars.
I don't love dealers and can't say my last experience about a decade ago was great. But it definitely helps if you don't need financing and are prepared to just donate your old clunker if you don't get offered enough.
- MG, absolutely shit experience, the salesman was literally trying to scam us by making up stuff that doesn't exist
- Nissan, Toyota, Citroen - garbage customer service, dealing with salespeople felt like being a tasty prey surrounded by lions
- Volkswagen - pretty good just.....cheap. like, the bare minimum of what I'd consider acceptable. Heavy push to upsell you stuff.
- Mercedes - best experience I had, actual friendly salespeople, didn't feel like I was being scammed, post-sales support was phenomenal, would seriously consider another Mercedes just for that
- Volvo - purchase experience was very good, haggled down a lot and it didn't seem like a huge deal, but we'll see about their post-purchase experience, have a service coming up and they've been trying to upsell me stuff already which I think is a bit dodgy. Meh, time will tell.
- Range Rover - despite being a luxury brand every single dealership of theirs treats the customer like a pest to get rid of. You know why? Because the average waiting time for a new RR is about 12 month+. They know they will sell cars no matter what,so why bother.
But yeah, obviously your milage will vary.
And there's one other thing - dealerships still have one good function. At least here in UK and EU it's the seller who sold you a product, so if something goes wrong your have your local dealership you can sue or pursue to make you whole. Would you do the same if it was a direct relationship with the manufacturer? If say, Volvo refuses to fix my car, can I go and sue Volvo? No, I'd use the entire strength of the customer protection system in this country to get the seller(the dealership) to fix my car, regardless of what the manufacturer says.
The dealer experience when buying a BMW, say, is astonishingly easy and reasonable (IME) vs. the same process of visiting a "normal" dealer. I knew this intellectually, but when we were looking for a new car a few years ago, after I had "recovered" from my sports car mania, we looked at several conventional dealers including Ford and Mazda.
Holy CRAP those experiences were AWFUL. I mean just TERRIBLE. Creepy dealers who clearly thought they were going to put one over on us, skeevy and hamfisted attempts to rush a sale, the whole nine yards. It's just BANANAS that this persists.
(For the record, we ended up with a VW. At the time, it was kind of right after the whole scandal, and they were fairly motivated to sell cars, which worked to our benefit. And the GTI is a hell of a lot of fun while being (a) cheap and (b) practical. No word of it a lie, driving it is at least 80% as much fun as driving my old 911 was.)
Worse for the dealer, everybody walks in having done their research. Most people know exactly how much the dealer paid for the car, and want it for that price leaving the dealer with nothing. There is thus no reason to treat the customer well when there isn't even any money to make. In fact the biggest dealers sell every car at a loss, making it up in factory incentives and post sales tactics which are bad for customer service, but what the customer really wants.
Most people don't buy enough cars to know what good sales actually would be. If you really want to know what good service is you need to average more than one car a month (sometimes it is every month, sometimes it is a large order every year). These customers are rare (always a business), but they do get a completely different experience as there is real reason to keep them happy.
For a dealer though sales are a distraction. They only sell cars at all because that is a cost of doing business to get the parts and service business. These are the real money maker. The first couple years they get everything (and the factory pays not the customer, always nice to tell someone there is no charge for major work). Many are trying to make themselves good places to go even after warranty is expired (that is reasonable prices).
The above applies to new cars only. Used car sales is completely different. (most new car dealers also make a ton of money on used car sales)
There is nothing sustainable about putting so much CO2 into the air. Almost 50% comes from transportation. Some jobs simply have to go and will be replaced by other jobs.
All mechanics do an easy 10:1 (probably closer to 50:1 ratio) of changing wear items compared to fixing leaks (the primary source of ICE maintenance). By the time 100k timing services and whatnot roll around most cars are in the hands of people who are taking them to independent mechanics for budgetary reasons. While the HN crowd can justify the cost of having that stuff done at the dealer for peace of mind your average person is taking those jobs to an independent.
The switch to EV is not going to strongly impact the kind of service the dealers do the most of. It's too close to call whether the reduction in the size of the warranty work ball and chain will be larger than the reduction in gravy timing jobs and exhaust repairs, in any case it's not a massive net difference.
The reason you see people on the Tesla and the Bolt forums (or HN) with their claims of insanely low maintenance costs per mile is selection bias. The early adopters have other cars for other tasks. They (mostly, I'm sure someone's done it) aren't renting the Uhaul moving trailer to put behind their Model 3 because they have other better options available. They tend to live in nice suburbs with nice roads and mostly commute with their EVs. With that kind of use most of these vehicles aren't wearing out fast. It's the closest thing a commuter car will get to a "church and bingo" usage pattern. When EVs get in the hands of the "rolling negative equity into a Dodge Journey/Nissan Altima" crowd and get used and maintained that way the maintenance costs are going to look a lot like the ICE vehicles they're replacing in that role.
Dealerships probably do quite a bit of oil and filter changes as part of annual service. Since every car needs those and many owners of new cars want to take it to the dealer (for whatever variety of reasons), they make a lot of money off these services.
I do all the maintenance on our family cars, subbing out only paint and tires. My electric LEAF has needed wiper blades and washer fluid in 20K miles and 6 years [it did need a warranty battery repair in year 4]. In that same time, my wife's CR-V (which is generally low maintenance among ICE cars) did about 30K miles and needed a clutch, a set of brake pads, a power steering pump, a belt tensioner and serpentine belt, an alternator, 6 oil changes, plus wiper blades and washer fluid.
Some of those were wear items (and last more than 5 years [clutch/alternator]), but the difference between an even traditionally considered low-maintenance/high-reliability ICE vehicle and a low-end electric was much greater than I expected. My parents' experience (with two electrics and a single diesel) is similar. The electric cars need much less intensive and much more predictable maintenance.
Those are typically break even or loss leader.
>my wife's CR-V (which is generally low maintenance among ICE cars) did about 30K miles and needed a clutch, a set of brake pads, a power steering pump, a belt tensioner and serpentine belt, an alternator, 6 oil changes, plus wiper blades and washer fluid.
And were you not doing your own maintenance would you be having a dealer do that stuff? Exactly.
Most of my friends seem to think "my car has a badge X on it; I always take it to the X dealership; as long as they charge me less than $1000 per visit, I don't think about it" which is crazy to me. They think $700 for a single-axle brake job is a reasonable price to pay. That's how dealerships eat because there's a lot more people who act that way than act my way.
Pretty much none (well I guess the salesman will have a harder time throwing in free oil changes to seal a deal) of the "time of sale" stuff is effected by the switch to EVs though which is why I didn't bother to cover it in depth or make a new vs used distinction.
Only a subset of service is affected. Yes, dealerships make a lot of money on service but they also waste a lot of bay-hours on warranty so it balances to a degree. Dealerships aren't so lean that that a reduction in service will sink their entire business model.
https://www.honda.com.au/about/our-future