Tacoma Vs. Rivian

I bought a Tacoma because it does what I need a mid size truck to do. This is my second Tacoma (third Toyota truck) so I knew what I was getting. I don’t have any performance deficits to address because I bought the right truck for my needs.

I don’t need a full size truck (overkill for me) and a commuter EV won’t do what I need a mid size truck to do.

My idea of a luxury vehicle isn’t a truck, no matter the brand.

The idea of taking a new $75K vehicle aggressively off road is foolish to me. I would build up an old Jeep for that purpose.

The “cheaper to operate” theory only makes sense for high annual mileage (i.e. commercial) use cases. You have to recoup the acquisition cost premium prior to the vehicle aging to the point of needing major maintenance.

While it is impossible to project now for the R1T, as an aside I did get $22,000 trade in for my 12 year old Tacoma. I wonder what an R1T will be worth in 12 years with 120K mikes on the odometer?

I guess I am just a practical New England yankee.

 

BMW doesn't sell a crap ton of vehicles because they are the most practical.

It's a new manufacture, you basically have to start near the top of the market. It takes a long time and a lot of focus to drive cost down to compete on the economy scale, and that's still rough. There is a reason adding fancy options and technology can DOUBLE the cost of an economy car when making the CAR itself is far more expensive. It's because that base model econo car is marely profitable and the manufacture needs folks to buy the upper trim to make a few bucks.

Rivian is a new manufacture, they came in as a "luxury" vehicle so they can have some profit margin.

 

I think you missed everything I wrote.

 

I’d argue the OR is a reasonable purchase over an SR5 if you need the features of the OR (lockers, etc.). While you can certainly build up an SR5 trim to a very capable truck, sometimes it is just better to buy the trim package.

Plus, around here at least, the OR trim package commands a premium over the SR5, so resale is a consideration.

The “want” versus “need” is a valid argument. My uncle owns an SRT Hellcat. No one “needs” a Hellcat, but the “want” is strong.

 

I don’t think so. You said an R1T can “outperform pretty much everything a Tacoma can do and is cheaper to operate”.

Over performance beyond the necessary isn’t adding value. Cheaper to operate without considering acquisition costs is a false argument.

 

Operating costs are entirely separate from acquisition costs.

 

2 trips to my son's school costs about $16/day in my stock Tacoma. In my wife's model y, it's 18kwh for the same distance. At $0.14/kwh where I live, it's $2.52/day

Total cost per month $50.40 vs $320.00

Insurance on both vehicles is the same, price on both vehicles was nearly the same.

 

I agree with your point on the need to package EV’s as “luxury” trim level vehicles in order to make any profit, but I think you have it backward on internal combustion / traditional vehicles.

My understanding is economy trim levels offer the least profit margin to a brand while luxury trim level packages offer greater profit margin.

 

Fine, then use a total cost of ownership over a fixed period of time calculation. Say total cost of ownership over 5 years and 60,000 miles, including residual value of the asset at the end of the term.

To make your financial justification you are asking to only focus on a limited perspective (operating costs) but this only makes sense if you are saying acquisition costs are equal or even close (which they obviously are not).

I’m totally fine with someone just wanting an R1T. I just don’t think there is a financial justification in most “average” use cases unless petroleum costs skyrocket.

 

We are in agreement there, that’s why I said you didn’t read my post. It clearly states that a Rivian will not have a realistic breakeven with a Tacoma, the initial price difference is just too much. With a comparable ICE truck there is a breakeven point however.

Comparing a Tacoma to a Rivian on a cost basis is like comparing a Camry to a BMW M3. Similar in initial appearance and dimensions but totally different performance, prices and target markets.

 

This is a closer financial argument than the R1T, but I wouldn’t use a Model Y to do the stuff I use my Tacoma for.

Using your figures, and assuming the Model Y was about $60k and the Tacoma was about $42K, you’ll recoup the Tesla price premium in about 5 years of ownership.

I have no idea the residual value of a 5 year old Tesla versus a 5 year old Tacoma though.

 

It's a 2021 long range AWD with white interior. Bought new in November 2021, it was $45k. My Tacoma was $43k

 

I worded that poorly. That is the point I was making, base model cars make less profit for the manufacture than higher trims

 

I just used google for the pricing. The said Model Y Performance was $59,000. My OR was about $42K. That is where my $17K difference came from.

Obviously, the closer in price point the vehicles are, the more EV’s make sense for the “average” user. $45k +/- is what I would expect to pay for any daily drive sedan I would be in the market for.

 

Agree 100%

The real challenge to EV manufacturing is nearly all vehicle brands buy their battery cells from either LG or Panasonic.

Brands will need to invest in their own battery cell IP in order to differentiate and drive advancement (cost, range, recharge capacity at 1,000 cycles, etc.).

 

Yeah performance models cost a whole lot more. They have 455hp. I don't have a performance.

 

In my situation the Rivian has a breakeven mileage of 52k miles. I paid $67k for the R1T and had $54k total in my Tacoma before I parted out and sold it. The Tacoma cost me $0.30/mile, the R1T so far is at $0.05/mile. If I hadn’t modified the Tacoma the difference would be greater of course due to a lower cost point and a lower cost per mile.

Compared to my TRX (a much closer competitor to the R1T than a Tacoma) I am in the clear immediately since I paid $76k for the TRX and it cost nearly $0.50/mile to drive.

 

The design language on the S is similar to the Wagoneer and Defender. Which all offer something different. For the money I'd consider the Defender over the S and Wagoneer. Obviously the Rivian has The niche EV start up appeal that the other two do not offer.

 

I agree with you. I did the math on a Rivian vs a Tacoma last year. The break even was around 17 years. That didn’t even include increase in insurance and excise tax. That alone would cover half a years worth of gas.

 

If the Rivian cost $50K it would be perfect. In reality it’s $30-40K more than that though.