[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

If people are willing to pay $100K today for an ICE sport sedan then its highly likely they'll be willing to pay the same for an equivalent EV model.

I think the idea of equivalence is the key.

Certainly there are disadvantages to owing an EV today such as limited range and lack of gas-station-like charging convenience. But then there are also benefits to the EV such as being able to charge at home (if that is convenient - and for many it is), not having to worry about routine engine maintenance, perhaps access to special expressway lanes or parking lot spaces, etc. So its give and take. Obviously someone whose use case happens to fall on the losing side of those trade-offs isn't going to go with the EV. But someone who comes out ahead could very well be willing to spend as much - or maybe even commensurately more if it works out to be a bigger win for them - on the EV than they did on they ICE vehicle.

In my case I was able to obtain an extremely low mileage (about 500mi) CPO EV at a price that was similar enough to the equivalent ICE vehicle that I decided to give it a try. So far it has worked out nicely.

Sales of $100,000 cars are not a large part of the market regardless of architecture. There are just not that many rich people who can afford $100K for basic transportation. $100,000 EVs are not going to saturate the market and make it convert to electric. For most people in the automotive market, the EV use case does not make economic sense. Any equivalent car to the Tesla Model 3 (mid-sized 4-door sedan) costs $20K to $30K less. The payback is 20 years and 250,000 total accumulated miles, which 95% of 1st-owners never reach.