The cheapest is not the most economical
In most cases, e-cars turn out to be the more economical variant than cars with combustion engines – even if the acquisition costs are higher. Meaningful calculations not only take into account the purchase price but also the costs over the entire life cycle. This includes the need for maintenance, the wear of parts, energy consumption, recycling and disposal. That makes it pretty clear: the cheapest offer may not always the most economical. A study by LeasePlan went into more detail.
Fairness in comparison
Only a fair comparison shows valid results but is difficult due to so many possible vehicle combinations. The aim was to compare vehicles that are as similar to one another as possible:
Match the power of the vehicles. Match the gearbox and select a combustion car with an automatic transmission. Match the luggage space – include the e-car’s front boot space in the calculations.
No surprise, not for sustainable thinking
Only the – still – higher initial costs seem to be a reason against purchasing an e-car. However, the study confirms what was suspected: compared to comparable combustion-driven vehicles e-cars have lower costs in conjunction with a longer duration and higher mileage, due to the lower running costs. The gap widens as e-cars are driven further and longer – with an e-car you run cheaper and cheaper with every mile.
Inspired by a study presented by LeasePlan Corporation N.V., The Netherlands
