[CentexG2]

Considering federal and regional tax incentives, ensuring that the comparison is against truly comparable IC or Hybrid vehicles in terms of size, interior accommodation, and trim/features, and considering life-cycle maintenance costs might alter the lifetime $/mile absolute number a bit for some drivers ....

..... but for your use habit scenario (and that of many others) may well not alter the bottom-line economic and long-trip (im)practicality conclusion.

Some may find that on a household basis, owning two vehicles, one EV and one IC or hybrid, may offer demonstrable household life-cycle economic payback for meeting their total transportation needs (maybe still not your two-vehicle household).

As has been the case from market-entry to date for EV's, many buyers who make the choice to 'go EV' do so based on reasons (tangible or otherwise) other than life-cycle economics. IMO there's nothing wrong with that as long as it's an informed choice.

IF one enters the process of evaluating EV vs IC/hybrid economics with an agenda biased against the EV, it's easy to support that agenda with an argument based on unsuitable vehicle or use-habit scenarios. NOT saying that's your agenda, but for some who posit the question, it is.

EV's aren't for everyone; but these days neither are ICV's.

 

[CentexG2]

You make some valid points, CentexG2, but I believe that there is one point in which you forwarded that you did not intend, that being it will now take two vehicles in the future to replace what we were capable of with the one Jetta TDI!

Bill

If your measure is is strictly economic return while meeting all transportation needs, what difference does it make whether that's with one or two vehicles? For the answer**, keep reading ...

Nope, no unintended point on my part, I'd suggest I forthrightly addressed that twice:

Some may find that on a household basis, owning two vehicles, one EV and one IC or hybrid, may offer demonstrable household life-cycle economic payback for meeting their total transportation needs (maybe still not your two-vehicle household).

......

EV's aren't for everyone ....

Only you can determine, through un-biased evaluation, if a two-vehicle scenario makes overall economic sense for you as it does for some.

**And if replacing your Jetta with two vehicles does make overall economic sense, then you can pursue whatever other factors may be appropriate for your situation, for against that overall economically sensible solution (e.g. while there may be overall economic benefit, residential parking logistics may make it an unattractive proposition for you. Etc.).



Edit per edit:

You make some valid points, CentexG2, but I believe that there is one point in which you forwarded that you did not intend, that being that we will now have to compromise by purchasing two vehicles in the future to replace our one Jetta TDI, which sure sounds like a step backwards to me, whether you are speaking from an enconomic, or conservation-al, point of view!

Bill

Again and still, un-biased evaluation can determine if the new factor you introduce ("conservation-al", i.e. some measure of life-cycle global resource balance) is or is not indeed a "step backward". I don't make any presumption in that regard.

I don't want to make the assumption, but it with your edited reply it almost seems you are wanting to advance an agenda rather than rationally consider the role of EV's and ICV's in an individual's total transportation solution. If that's the case, I'm out, no worries!