Thought of the Day: What’s More Important? Price or Range?

Following a year-long hiatus, our thought of the day YouTube videos are back! Today, we’re asking what’s more important when it comes to electric car range: price or range?

Watch the video above and leave your thoughts in the Comments below.


Want to keep up with the latest news in evolving transport? Don’t forget to follow Transport Evolved on Twitter, like us on Facebook and G+, and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

You can also support us directly as a monthly supporting member by visiting

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInDigg thisShare on RedditEmail this to someonePin on Pinterest

Related News

  • Martin Lacey

    I may be old fashioned, but when I had to use public transport it was dirty, overcrowded, inconvenient and expensive. It was frequently disrupted by union issues and disjointed, for example trains arrived on the hour and buses on 45 minutes. Meaning you often waited in the dark, cold and wet for connections which may or may not turn up. Never again! I expect many others feel the same.

    The point in owning a car of any type is the freedom to go anywhere anytime. So I would counter that range is significantly more important than price. Tesla have been very successful working on range and fast charging solutions. The Model 3 will be their first attempt to work on the price, whilst maintaining a decent amount of range. I suggest they did it this way round for several reasons, including public perception.

  • Surya

    I don’t think you can convince the general public to buy an EV if they have to rely on multi modal transport for long distances. Most people simply aren’t open to that notion. No, people will want to use a car, preferably their own car, to do whatever traveling they want, need. So for them range is very important. More so because they don’t have a clue about the status of charging networks.

  • Farmer_Dave

    Low range BEVs are fine as a second car, but that would exclude most of the lower income buyers Nikki speaks of.

    Her ideas about multi modal transport are probably formed by her European background; America is much more vast and buses, trains, etc. are not feasible in most cases. Not to mention that traveling that way can cost up to four times as much for a family of four than traveling by automobile.

    Tesla and Bolt have the right idea, 200 miles plus is the sweet spot for practical range.

  • Dan Brook

    Some interesting points. It was with some reluctance that I bought a second car (I went for a second EV). I have used motorcycles most of my life for my own transport but the need to transport a child to a childminder and poor winter weather meant a car was needed. Public transport wasn’t an option as it’s expensive and basically doesn’t go where I need to be when I need to be there.
    I’d welcome a shift in personal transport options but culture in UK and US still sees personal transport as the pinnacle. Probably because most public transport is so poor and expensive. I keep my eye out for other viable alternatives.

    I live on a small island where EVs should be ideal but there are no government incentives for purchase, home chargers or road tax so EVs are a tough sell to a lot of people here.

  • BenBrownEA

    Forgive the time delay in response… been involved with our NDEW event in Kalamazoo.
    Spot on Nikki!!! 90% of US travel doesn’t require 200 miles of range daily for most of us. If you have a job requiring 200 or more miles daily commute, seems you should have income/employment encouraging purchase of a Bolt, III or X, if it was truly that valued. There are though many more people in the US earning under $60k a year who would choose to drive electric. For that matter I’ve talked to a good number earning under $30k who look forward to owing an ev and know one who purchased a used i-miev who travels over a 100 miles several times a year whose income at the time of miev purchase was $14k.

    The whole topic seems a reflection on culture, what is internally defined as necessary to be human, not necessarily needed. I’ve friends who purchased a 5,000 square foot home for the two of them. The wife said she would die before living in anything under 4,000 square feet. They are dipping into their retirement funds to pay for housekeeping, lawn maintenance etc. and can’t afford to go to the doctors. The average home in 1959 for a family of four in the US was 983 square feet. Back then there actually were at least a few well adjusted families who prospered in such housing. Today its unimaginable. I think this idea of range is for the most part cultural and has nothing to do with progress or technology.

    Good news, culture can change with vision. Bad news, changing culture normally is like turning an ocean liner – slow. Good news sometimes disruptive technologies happen and there are cultural snaps than slow shifts. I think ev’s are the tip of the iceberg of a snap. I just hope it happens faster than imagined.

    For myself, I could live with an under 120 mile range vehicle especially if DCQC or CCS was available for 99% of my driving. Pricing the car around the mid to low teens could likely make it work for 85% of the people in the region I live in.