The $25k car is going extinct?

You can still buy a new subcompact car (like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia) in Europe for under 20k EUR.

The more interesting question is why these cars disappeared in the US. And while many of the factors discussed here are true for both EU and US (inflation, interest rates, manufacturer profit margins etc) I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.

> I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.

This has become the irrelevant part because "does it have an electric motor in the powertrain" has become more important to fuel economy than vehicle size. There are hybrid SUVs that get better MPG than non-hybrid sedans, to say nothing of the full electric ones.

Which is another reason the average price is increasing. Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price. People who can do the math realize that paying more up front for a hybrid or full electric is paying less long-term. But then the market for lower priced new cars declines, because the people who can afford a new car can afford to pay a little extra for long-term savings and most of the people who can't afford to do that were buying used to begin with.

>Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.

Is this conclusion based just on fuel consumption? From a relatability standpoint, it doesn’t make sense at first blush because you have to have both ICE and EV parts in series in the drivetrain; the total reliability can’t be higher than the individual components of they’re in series.

Depending on the drive trains being compared, the hybrid drivetrain may be overall mechanically simpler than an ICE. A series hybrid can easily have fewer moving parts, fewer friction spots, less reliance on fluid motion through little channels, etc.

And then you're also keeping the moving parts more in their happy zone of temperature, speed, and load instead of needing them to operate in as wide of conditions.

Could you elaborate further?

A hybrid, by definition, combines an ICE and electric drivetrain. While I understand it could be designed for a more efficient range of operation* how could it negate the downsides of an ICE-only design if it requires an ICE? (Are we conflating EV and hybrid?)

* This also means each segment is less globally efficient, meaning the system is less efficient if it has to limp along if one part is inoperable

The pure ICE transmission is probably far more mechanically complicated than the transmission of a series hybrid.

The pure ICE engine and transmission has to deal with some of the most stressful times the motor can handle, extremely high torque demands coming from a stop. Its far less stressful for an electric motor to generate good torque at such low RPMs.

Just two quick examples.

I think you’re still conflating EVs and hybrids. A hybrid has an ICE that is distinct from the mechanical transmission. Hybrids tend to run off the ICE at high speeds because it’s more efficient and use the ICE to charge the battery.

> A series hybrid

A key part of my original statement.

A series hybrid or parallel series hybrid will often have a far simpler transmission in terms of moving parts and what not. You're right, they'll use the gas motor for power going highway speeds, but they're still a lot simpler. Many hybrids effectively only have a single speed for the ICE motor in their "transmission", some have 2-4, compared to modern ICE transmissions which are like 7+ gears.

Note, I do agree, there are some hybrid drive trains that are more complicated than their ICE counterparts, but it is not a given. Many hybrids are a good bit simpler in the end.

One example of a simpler setup would be Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. e-CVT's can be radically simpler mechanically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

Yes, that’s why I put deliberately put “series” in my original post.

The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.

So if the claim is that hybrids are more reliable than ICE, there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable. You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.

you and Retric are using different definitions of "series". A "series hybrid" is a specific term describing a design that uses an ICE engine to generate electricity that powers an electric motor. This design replaces the transmission completely because the ICE rpm doesn't need to be matched to the wheel speed and the electric motor has a much wider RPM range.

Many series hybrids do have a way to power the wheels directly with the engine at highway speeds but it's generally much simpler than a full transmission. Most Honda hybrids for instance have a single clutch that connects the ICE to a "6th" gear.

> You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.

less parts -> more reliability

Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space. Thanks for clarifying. I was using it in the pure reliability domain sense (similar to the use in electrical circuits)

>less parts -> more reliability

This is the general heuristic but only true if the components in each system are equally reliable (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost). I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.

For example, the hybrid ICE may be more reliable for good reasons (eg consistent RPM). Or the traditional battery may have half the reliability, but 1/50th the cost. All of that factors into cost of ownership.