Confused about PHEV, Hybrids, etc...

[Someone]

Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.

VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.

But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs.  They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc,  but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers.   And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car.  Improving that is really important.

It sure is hard to share a car.

Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.

Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.

[EEVblog]

Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.

VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.

But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs.  They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc,  but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers.   And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car.  Improving that is really important.

It sure is hard to share a car.

Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.

Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.

It's turtles all the way down.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

[Someone]

People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here. Having been in all the different combinations of above  (rent/leverage/own house, rent/own/share car) there can be situations where one is more profitable than the other. Trying to make generalizations across "majority" when that is mostly based on feelings/desires rather than financial basics, you can say it all you like. I'll point out how its to (the majorities) financial detriment.

[gnuarm]

The only possible monkey wrench I see is the possibility of raw materials, such as lithium, limiting production rates.

Bingo. Throw in home and grid storage demand and your supply problems get harder.

Grid storage is not likely to be lithium based going forward.  Autos and other "mobile" devices have a specific need for high energy density, both by volume and by weight.  Grid storage does not.  Other battery technologies will dominate that market. 

Currently vanadium flow batteries are looking very good for stationary storage.  I just read something about a very large installation that is going in.  I believe it was in an article about how the technology was developed with US funds, and somehow ended up in a Chinese factory.  It seems that is being corrected with the license being pulled. 

[EEVblog]

People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here. Having been in all the different combinations of above  (rent/leverage/own house, rent/own/share car) there can be situations where one is more profitable than the other. Trying to make generalizations across "majority" when that is mostly based on feelings/desires rather than financial basics, you can say it all you like. I'll point out how its to (the majorities) financial detriment.

You don't hear horror stories about people paying cash for a car (lemons aside, warranties generally cover that). But there are countless horror stories of people coming-a-gutsa on car loans. They literally make drama stories on the current affairs shows with monotinous regularly.
If you have the available cash, buy the car, it's pretty uch ano-brainer unless you have other cricumstances like you move or change jobs often or don't have the lifestyle etc. Yes it depreciates with time, but it's also a cash insurance buffer that should SHTF, you can sell it and get instant cash. But if SHTF financially and you are locked into a car repayment loan, good luck.
Only with hindsight can you look back and calculate the overall financial analysis. And sometimes, that's not the point.

I would strongly advise people, as first order advice, don't get a car loan. You are way better off buying a junker outright than going into a replayment plan for a new (or heaven forbid, used) car.

[gnuarm]

Batteries still aren't *cheap*, but they definitely have fallen substantially.

Of course they have, there is a big market for them now.
But have not, and probaly will not drop enough for Joe Average to think EV's a no-brainer compared to their ICE car.
Not to mention that EV's simply aren't practically suitable to a large percentage of the population. And I don't see that changing either until you can get a large range at a cheap price AND the ability to recharge in a few minutes.

Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical? 

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.  The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use). 

I think many people simply are defeatist, not being willing to even think about the problems.  Bottom line is BEVs are happening, and attitudes will change as people see them adopted widely. 

[bdunham7]

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.

It's not social pressure, its more like not wanting to be annoyed with having to deal with other people's issues on a daily basis.  I don't want to have to deal with a car that has other people's fast food wrappers and cat vomit in it.  OTOH, if I happen to eat lunch on the road or my cat throws up in the car, maybe I'd like to wait a week before cleaning it up.  That's a big reason why people like to own their cars (and houses), at least in my case.  If you like your utopian model, then go for it.  Just don't expect to be able to impose it on the majority of the population.

A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.

While the facts as stated are more or less true, this canard is actually one of the most annoying bits of bad financial advice I hear over and over.  Neither houses nor cars are normal investment assets and shouldn't be thought about that way, unless of course the suddenly appreciate at an unexpectedly high rate and you are in a position to sell them for a profit.  Whether the car 'depreciates' or just wears out really shouldn't matter much.  Both the house and th car are expenses--you pay to have a place to live and you pay to have transportation. 

[EEVblog]

Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical? 

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. 

It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.

[gnuarm]

It's turtles all the way down.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

Not the same thing.  People in cities often don't own cars.  They "share" by using public transport, or taxis or walking/riding bikes.  The idea of car sharing is not bad and many people, who live in apartment complexes with convenient access to many facilities would be happy to share cars. 

Yeah, when everyone wants a car at the same time, some won't get one and they will have to rent or make other plans.  It doesn't seem like an unworkable plan though.  If you want to fly around the holidays, you need to book well in advance, otherwise you don't go.  That doesn't mean people buy their own airplanes. 

[Someone]

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.

It's not social pressure, its more like not wanting to be annoyed with having to deal with other people's issues on a daily basis.  I don't want to have to deal with a car that has other people's fast food wrappers and cat vomit in it.  OTOH, if I happen to eat lunch on the road or my cat throws up in the car, maybe I'd like to wait a week before cleaning it up.  That's a big reason why people like to own their cars (and houses), at least in my case.  If you like your utopian model, then go for it.  Just don't expect to be able to impose it on the majority of the population.

Lol, spoken like someone who has never shared or rented a car. I'm not pushing utopia on anyone, just pointing out the blinkered thinking that leads people to incorrectly believe a car is cheap convenience.

[gnuarm]

Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical? 

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. 

It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.

So anecdotal and not anything we can actually debate.

[EEVblog]

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.

It's not social pressure, its more like not wanting to be annoyed with having to deal with other people's issues on a daily basis.  I don't want to have to deal with a car that has other people's fast food wrappers and cat vomit in it.  OTOH, if I happen to eat lunch on the road or my cat throws up in the car, maybe I'd like to wait a week before cleaning it up.  That's a big reason why people like to own their cars (and houses), at least in my case.  If you like your utopian model, then go for it.  Just don't expect to be able to impose it on the majority of the population.

As someone who lives in typical small suburban street, I can't see how renting a communal car would possibly be an option. Even if I was able to convince everyone in our small dead end street to abandon owning their car and having a rental (or even two) that gets left in the street just for our use, you'd constantly have everyone wanting to use it at the same time to drop off and pick up kids, go the gym, sports, shopping, weekends etc. Not to mention work.
It's insanely impractical and people would be jack of it after a week.
And then you are almost certainly financially better off just buying a junker outright and having it to yourself.
There are hug reason why the majority own their own car (finance or otherwise). The communal rental thing will always be a niche.

[Monkeh]

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.  The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use). 

I know multiple people in my town who have no parking - they own cars, and they own a house or rent a flat, and have no assured place to park and with that, no place to charge a BEV except sitting at a (currently rare, mostly slow) public charger.

It is a problem, whether you want to admit it or not. One which must be solved, not handwaved away.

[EEVblog]

Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical? 

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. 

It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.

So anecdotal and not anything we can actually debate.

I know people who have said it, and in some cases, have seen their actual living situtations myself, and I know it's true.
I don't want to debate it, it's a literal truth that many people do not have the ability to practically charge an EV. And it's often not easy to get such infrastructure installed due to physical access, cost, council regulations etc.

[bdunham7]

Lol, spoken like someone who has never shared or rented a car. I'm not pushing utopia on anyone, just pointing out the blinkered thinking that leads people to incorrectly believe a car is cheap convenience.

I've rented cars as needed for 40 years.  Although I've been pleased at times with how inexpensive they were (not lately, b/t/w) it still costs more than having my own car would, at least on my home turf.  I haven't tried a shared car service, but here's a recent review of a local company, ZipCar which is pretty much in line with my expectations.

Absolutely terrible. I will never be a customer again. Received a car reeking of weed, with gum stuck to the windshield, sand all in the trunk, and crumbled food all over the floor (Saturday). Submitted the complaint with images via the app, AS INSTRUCTED IN THE APP. Nothing happened.

[bdunham7]

Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical? 

I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home.  That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.  The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use).

People that live in apartments or other rented accommodations with assigned parking and landlords that will not permit the installation of chargers (often for totally legitimate reasons, b/t/w).  People who have a budget of under $10-15K for a used car and need a reasonable daily range.  Those two alone account for a pretty large swath of the US population.

Even L2 charging isn't free or anywhere near free once you price in the wiring to it.  Streetside charging, even if only outlets, is a pretty big capital outlay.  I'm not sure there is enough copper available.

If you want to fly around the holidays, you need to book well in advance, otherwise you don't go.  That doesn't mean people buy their own airplanes.

They certainly do if they can afford them.  I would buy a Honda Jet if I could.  Unfortunately anything I could afford would only be recreational and not practical transportation.

[Bassman59]

People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.

Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here. Having been in all the different combinations of above  (rent/leverage/own house, rent/own/share car) there can be situations where one is more profitable than the other. Trying to make generalizations across "majority" when that is mostly based on feelings/desires rather than financial basics, you can say it all you like. I'll point out how its to (the majorities) financial detriment.

You don't hear horror stories about people paying cash for a car (lemons aside, warranties generally cover that). But there are countless horror stories of people coming-a-gutsa on car loans. They literally make drama stories on the current affairs shows with monotinous regularly.
If you have the available cash, buy the car, it's pretty uch ano-brainer unless you have other cricumstances like you move or change jobs often or don't have the lifestyle etc. Yes it depreciates with time, but it's also a cash insurance buffer that should SHTF, you can sell it and get instant cash. But if SHTF financially and you are locked into a car repayment loan, good luck.
Only with hindsight can you look back and calculate the overall financial analysis. And sometimes, that's not the point.

I would strongly advise people, as first order advice, don't get a car loan. You are way better off buying a junker outright than going into a replayment plan for a new (or heaven forbid, used) car.

Obviously things have changed recently, but for many years, people with "good credit" could get new car loans with interest rates below 1% and sometimes even literally 0%. Now of course the car manufacturers offering these loans did so because they knew it would sell cars, and the low/no interest rate would make the upsell into a higher trim level or into a higher-end model easier. Financially savvy buyers could take advantage of these rates and get the car they needed and preserve cash flow. Let's see, would I rather just hand over $20,000 in one lump sum or pay $417/month for four years? (I assume a decent down payment.)

Also re: new vs used, that 0.99% rate is for new cars bought by people with "excellent" credit. If your situation is such that you will be a used car and the loan rate is 8%, then sure, paying cash, even if the car in question has to be a junker to be affordable, is the better option. Where it gets weird is when the price for used cars coming off lease, so three years old, cost slightly under the cost of new, but because the car is used, loan rates will be higher, so in terms of monthly payments and total cost of the loan, the new car might very well end up being less expensive.

And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability? Do you have the skills, the tools, the time and the space to do the repairs yourself? Can you be without the car for a day, or for the week it takes for you to repair it?

Everyone has different answers to those questions, because everyone's situation is different.

[pcprogrammer]

Lived in Delft for 10 years and left about 26 years ago to move to a new build location in Hoogvliet and after living there for 4 years moved on to Nunhem a small town in Limburg and now in rural France for already 10 years I have some insights in car ownership and parking over time.

In old town Delft most of the people living there had their own car and parking has always been hell. When my wife moved in we had two cars and her working as a nurse with different shifts had to park quite a bit away when she had night shifts. Charging a BEV on the streets there would require street poles everywhere since you can't have your own on your own parking space. There is no own parking space unless you are one of the very few with a garage. The house next door had one, but that was an exception.

In the new build location of Hoogvliet we had a house without opposite front neighbors and two sides of parking. In year one we had all the space to park no problems. By the time we left four years later, parking had become a problem So no guaranteed parking in front of your house to charge your car.

In the small town of Nunhem we had our own driveway and a garage and there it would not be a problem to charge our car. Here in rural France we also have our own driveway and garage. A BEV would do fine for the shopping we do, but would be a drag for the two trips a year we take to the Netherlands. Sure we could rent a car for that, but we decided to upgrade our 17 year old car to a 1 year old ICE and hope to use that for the next 15 years or so. A hybrid could have done here if the price was within our budget, but they are still to high for us.

In all the situations above car sharing would not have been an option with the work we did and even here in rural France I don't see it work that well. And with a lot of people being pigs I fear the state of a shared car every time I would like to use it. No thanks, I will keep my own car, even if it depreciates in value.

[chickenHeadKnob]

And then you are almost certainly financially better off just buying a junker outright and having it to yourself.
There are hug reason why the majority own their own car (finance or otherwise). The communal rental thing will always be a niche.

With respect to buying junkers, the WEF almost certainly can make this same calculation. Which is why I anticipate Anglo-sphere countries will introduce society wide coercive measures to prevent personal ownership of old cars. They  will become inviable through some permutation of emission, road safety, licensing, insurance, carbon fuel rationing  ect. laws. The same with cash transactions. Banksters are hot and horny for the elimination of the cash economy. You know, to fight crime and stuff.

For most of my life I bought pick-up trucks, both used and new, and then hung on to them till they were 18-20+ years old. Easy to self-fix and maintain, used for some construction work and commuting. Made good deals along the way with very low amortized cost of ownership. Within the next 2-3 years I am  looking to buy what will likely be my last vehicle and don't know what to do. Shit has gotten confusing real fast. I am still inclined to stick with a gasoline powered vehicle, but as others have already mentioned the prices in the used car market are insane.

[Someone]

And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability? Do you have the skills, the tools, the time and the space to do the repairs yourself? Can you be without the car for a day, or for the week it takes for you to repair it?

Everyone has different answers to those questions, because everyone's situation is different.

This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.

[tom66]

Grid storage is not likely to be lithium based going forward.  Autos and other "mobile" devices have a specific need for high energy density, both by volume and by weight.  Grid storage does not.  Other battery technologies will dominate that market. 

Currently vanadium flow batteries are looking very good for stationary storage.  I just read something about a very large installation that is going in.  I believe it was in an article about how the technology was developed with US funds, and somehow ended up in a Chinese factory.  It seems that is being corrected with the license being pulled.

I think grid storage even being a battery is unlikely.

Convert it into hydrogen and store that at STP in natural gas caverns, then pull that hydrogen through a few "fool-cells" to make electricity.

Or, convert that hydrogen into natural gas using Fischer-Tropsch, or ammonia using the Haber process, and then combust as necessary (carbon-neutral fuel, assuming the natural gas leakage is kept low enough.)

Most countries that use natural gas have huge salt or geological caverns underground suitable for storing whole seasons worth of gas and it's typically at a low pressure.  Reuse what we have.

Small battery-packs will handle the hour-by-hour load management but I doubt they will ever do much more than that - e.g. for the UK you'd need a 960GWh battery for 1 day's electricity (assuming demand stays as is) - that's roughly enough to build 13 million Tesla Model 3's - and you'll need more than one day worth of storage if the grid is fully renewable.

Edit: typo

[EEVblog]

This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.

Do you have a family? Doesn't work so well then.

[Someone]

This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.

Do you have a family? Doesn't work so well then.

No-one is saying they will replace all cars. Sure, have a family hatch/wagon/van/mover (sized to number of young) for the daily routine, and then share/rent/borrow a car for the non daily routine tasks.

Owning a car has "hidden" costs which people pretend dont exist, which makes alternatives appear less desirable when they aren't.

[nctnico]

Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.

VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.

But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs.  They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc,  but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers.   And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car.  Improving that is really important.

It sure is hard to share a car.

Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.

Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.

It's turtles all the way down.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.

There is ofcourse a number of people for whom owning a car is some kind of status symbol. But I think the group that simply needs a financially sensible car to travel to/from work every day is much larger.  In the Netherlands used cars outsell new cars roughly 4 to 1.

And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability?

I don't think you have to do repairs yourself to run a car cheaply. I never had to. If you select a car carefully so you know the model is reliable + have the actual car checked by a mechanic before buying it, you won't be in for nasty surprises. Next to lending money for a car, the worst thing to do is buy a used car simply because it looks pretty. Typically I spend between 800 to 1500 euro on a used car to get it back to the proper maintenance level (including good tyres). With >80% devaluation eaten by the previous owner, that is well worth the money.

[EEVblog]

And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability? Do you have the skills, the tools, the time and the space to do the repairs yourself? Can you be without the car for a day, or for the week it takes for you to repair it?
Everyone has different answers to those questions, because everyone's situation is different.

Sure.
And "junker" doesn't have to mean a $1000 bomb. It could simply mean a decent $10,000 used car instead of a $30,000 new one. Modern cars are very reliable, and if you get one of the common Japanese ones for example (Toyota Corolla for example), they are super reliable and parts are plentiful and fairly cheap if needed.

In my wealth video I think I recommended not buying a new car, or the latest iPhone etc. Save your money and live frugally until you don't have to any more.