[mbesto]

> you have to control for (a) sports and (b) expensive cars.

Fair. But the opposite is also true...Porsche 911 and 718 are both 9% and 17% depreciation values respectively, which bring the overall averages down too. Not to mention the Model S is #19 in worst depreciation. So there are a lot of factors at play other than simply saying "just eliminate all sports/expensive cars"

> The Model 3 is shown to have a 42.9% 5-year depreciation, around the category average for SUVs.

You first made a point about comparing apples to oranges (which was fair) and then compared apples to oranges to make another same point. /headscratch

You would have to compare a Model 3 to a sedan, not an SUV. Point is, if EVs are as valuable as people make them out to be and the demand is so high for them, then why isn't the used car market telling us that?

[floxy]

I think the $7,500 federal tax credit screws up most people's depreciation calculation. Or at least not keeping that in mind skews people's perception. For example, I purchased a Nissan Leaf years ago, when it was still eligible for the full $7,500 credit. The MSRP was ~$28k. But I only paid ~$21.5k. So it seems like it suffered 23% depreciation the day I drove it off the lot, since no one would pay more than that for a used one, otherwise, they can just buy it brand new for $21.5k themselves. But that 23% number doesn't affect the owner of the car.

[JumpCrisscross]

> You would have to compare a Model 3 to a sedan, not an SUV

My point is that EV has a depreciation rate comparable to that of a popular automobile category. We wouldn't conclude adversely against SUVs for that number; we similarly shouldn't for the Model 3.

> if EVs are as valuable as people make them out to be and the demand is so high for them

The drumbeat of the last year has been about flagging demand for EVs. Who is saying demand is so high?

[mbesto]

> Who is saying demand is so high?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/03/cars/musk-tesla-cars-value-ev...