The automotive world is buzzing with change, and electric vehicles (EVs) have long been hailed as the undisputed future of driving. For ages, the prevailing thought was that once you experienced the instant power, quiet ride, and eco-friendly nature of an EV, there was no going back. However, recent evidence paints a more intricate picture, questioning the certainty of ‘once an EV driver, always an EV driver.’ The journey toward widespread EV adoption is proving to be quite bumpy, with a notable number of early enthusiasts now considering a switch back to traditional gasoline-powered cars.
A recent McKinsey global consumer survey revealed a striking statistic: nearly 30% of electric vehicle owners globally are likely to switch back to internal combustion engine cars. This sentiment is even more pronounced in the U.S., where a staggering 46% of EV owners stated they were likely to revert to ICEs, far surpassing the global average of 29%. This unexpected trend is not merely a blip; it’s reinforced by other studies, such as one from Edmunds, which found that in Q2 2024, just under 40% of EVs traded in were used to purchase or lease a new ICE vehicle. These figures paint a clear picture: a considerable segment of EV owners is experiencing buyer’s remorse, prompting a deeper investigation into the core reasons behind this disillusionment.
Automakers like GM and Ford, while reporting increased EV sales, have tempered their growth forecasts, acknowledging that issues such as charging availability, range limitations, and battery degradation could deter many early buyers from making another EV purchase. The enthusiasm that once characterized the early stages of EV adoption appears to have stalled for many, leading to an intriguing and crucial question: what exactly is driving these owners to reconsider the very technology they once embraced? As we navigate this evolving market, understanding these pivotal pain points is essential for both consumers and the industry looking to cement the EV’s long-term future.
1. **Inadequate Public Charging Infrastructure**One of the most frequently cited frustrations for electric vehicle owners considering a switch back to an ICE vehicle is the glaring deficit in public charging infrastructure. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience; it’s a fundamental challenge that impacts the practicality and usability of an EV for many drivers. According to McKinsey’s survey, a substantial 35% of EV drivers who are likely to purchase an ICE as their next vehicle point directly to the lack of adequate public charging infrastructure as the primary basis for their decision. This highlights a critical disconnect between the promise of electric mobility and the current on-the-ground reality for a significant portion of the driving public.
The problem is compounded by severe disparities in the distribution of existing chargers. In the U.S., for instance, while 60% of urban residents live less than a mile from the nearest public charger, this accessibility drops sharply to 41% for suburban residents and a dismal 17% for those in rural areas. This uneven distribution means that for many, especially outside dense urban centers, the convenience of charging is severely limited. Even in states with high EV adoption rates, the infrastructure struggles to keep pace. California, despite having the highest rate of EV purchases, ranks 49th among states in the public ports-to-drivers ratio, with only one public port for every 29 EVs.
This scarcity and uneven distribution manifest as real-world concerns for consumers. As Ivan Drury, Edmunds director of insights, articulated, “Real-world concerns that consumers have voiced through the mainstream surveys are finally coming to fruition.” He added that this “speaks to both current adoption rates that have stalled out, but also the idea that not everyone’s going to buy another.” For many, the theoretical benefits of EV ownership are overshadowed by the daily struggle to find reliable and accessible charging, turning what should be a seamless experience into a source of constant stress and logistical planning.
2.Beyond the sheer scarcity of charging stations, ‘charging access anxiety’ creates a significant psychological burden for EV owners. This pervasive worry stems from the uncertainty of finding a working, available charger, especially when traveling on unfamiliar roads or during busy periods. A McKinsey survey revealed that 21% of EV drivers contemplating a return to gasoline cars specifically pointed to this anxiety about charging accessibility as a major factor. This clearly shows that simply having chargers isn’t enough; drivers need a high degree of confidence in their reliability and constant availability.
Just like any consumer, EV drivers deeply value ‘convenience and a hassle-free experience,’ as noted by Christian Peter of EMC ElektroMobilitätsClub. When this convenience is undermined by unreliable chargers or the stress of finding an open spot, the overall satisfaction with owning an EV takes a hit. Drivers aren’t just purchasing a vehicle; Karl Brauer, iSeeCars executive analyst, highlights that they also ‘pay more for anxiety about how I’m going to be able to use the car if I can’t find a charger.’ This added ‘cost’ of worry significantly impacts many EV owners’ decision-making.
This anxiety is particularly acute when planning long-distance trips, where charging stops need to be meticulously factored into the itinerary. The fear of being stranded or facing significant delays due to unavailable or broken chargers can turn an exciting road trip into a daunting logistical challenge. While the Global EV Drivers Alliance found that 92% of EV owners globally plan to buy another EV, even they cited “a limited public supply of the fastest type of charger, typically used only for road trips,” and “broken chargers and the time it can take to charge” as drawbacks. This highlights that even satisfied EV owners recognize the significant hurdles in the public charging ecosystem, underscoring the validity of this widespread anxiety.
3. **High Total Cost of Ownership**Beyond the initial purchase price, the total cost of owning an electric vehicle is proving to be a significant deterrent for many, pushing them back towards more traditional gasoline-powered options. The McKinsey survey identified cost as the second-most common reason for EV owners to consider reverting to an ICE vehicle, with 34% of drivers stating that the “total costs of driving are too high.” This encompasses a range of financial burdens that, for many, outweigh the perceived savings on fuel. It’s not just about what you pay at the dealership; it’s about the entire financial lifecycle of the vehicle.
One major component of this high cost is the price of the EV itself. As Karl Brauer noted, “The biggest barrier to entry for new EV buyers is price, because they tend to cost more than a non-EV.” He elaborates on the consumer’s perspective, “A person looks at them and they’re like, ‘This is what I have to pay for the equivalent EV versus a compact car that isn’t an EV?'” This price disparity at the point of sale often discourages potential buyers and, for those who do purchase, sets a high financial bar that subsequent savings may not feel like they fully overcome, especially if they encounter other unexpected costs.
Furthermore, the costs extend into areas like insurance and repairs, which are often higher for EVs. The looming specter of battery replacement costs is particularly daunting. A replacement battery can be as much as $20,000, and for a popular model like the Tesla Model 3, it’s approximately $13,000, which astonishingly represents over 30% of the sedan’s starting price. Such potential outlays make the long-term financial commitment to an EV seem less appealing, particularly when combined with the anxiety of potential future expenses that are not as predictable or manageable as those for an ICE vehicle.
4. **Complexity of Long-Distance Travel**The allure of electric vehicles for daily commutes is often clear, but the practicalities take a dramatic turn when considering long-distance trips. For a substantial number of EV owners, these extended journeys become a source of stress and logistical complexity, leading many to reconsider their commitment to an all-electric lifestyle. McKinsey’s data shows that nearly 1 in 3, specifically 32%, of EV owners globally reported that their driving patterns on long-distance trips were “affected too much due to having an EV.” This impact on how people plan and execute travel is a major factor in the desire to switch back.
Planning a road trip in an EV involves more than just mapping out a route; it requires meticulous consideration of charging station locations, charging speeds, and potential wait times. This level of pre-planning can feel burdensome compared to the spontaneity offered by gasoline vehicles, which can refuel at ubiquitous gas stations in a matter of minutes. The lack of enough chargers along highways and main roads, cited by 40% of global EV owners surveyed by McKinsey, directly contributes to this complexity, making long journeys feel less convenient and more like an expedition requiring careful strategizing.
This challenge significantly impacts the “confidence in my ability to go out and do what I want to do whenever I want to do it,” as described by Karl Brauer. The freedom of movement, a hallmark of personal transportation, feels curtailed for some EV owners on longer excursions. Even in high-growth EV markets, the infrastructure for highway charging lags. The desire for a vehicle that can effortlessly handle both daily routines and spontaneous adventures is a fundamental consumer expectation, and when an EV fails to deliver on the latter, it often prompts owners to seek alternatives that offer greater flexibility and peace of mind.
5. **Battery Degradation and Range Limitations**Another significant concern contributing to EV owners’ disillusionment revolves around battery performance, specifically degradation over time and the perceived limitations of range. While advancements are continuously being made, the real-world experiences of some early buyers, particularly those living in specific climates, have been less than ideal. Ivan Drury of Edmunds highlighted this, noting that for some, “it’s going to be the charging component, or maybe the range wasn’t good enough, or battery degradation. Maybe [EV buyers] experienced it firsthand, and it was so bad, and they lived in a cold weather state where they said, ‘You know, I’m never gonna buy one again.'” This personal negative experience can be a powerful driver for switching back.
The performance of EV batteries, and thus the vehicle’s range, can be significantly affected by external factors, most notably temperature. In cold weather states, battery efficiency can decrease, leading to a noticeable reduction in available range. This phenomenon can be particularly frustrating for owners who purchased their vehicles based on advertised ranges that don’t always translate perfectly to varied driving conditions or climates. When the practical range falls short of expectations, or declines over time due to degradation, it directly impacts the vehicle’s utility and the owner’s confidence in its capabilities, especially when combined with the aforementioned charging anxieties.
Ultimately, for many drivers, a vehicle’s range is a core metric of its functionality. If a driver consistently finds themselves limited by their EV’s range for their typical driving needs, or if the battery degrades to a point where the vehicle no longer reliably meets those needs, it becomes a compelling reason to seek a different solution. As battery range and density continue to increase, and charging infrastructure improves, these specific issues might lessen in the future, as Karl Brauer suggests. However, for current owners who have experienced these limitations firsthand, the prospect of waiting for future solutions might not be enough to prevent a return to the known reliability of an ICE vehicle.
6.The financial considerations for electric vehicles extend beyond the initial purchase and running expenses, heavily involving their long-term resale value. In a dramatic departure from earlier trends, the market for used EVs has seen a sharp decrease in value, a factor that is undoubtedly contributing to current owners’ growing dissatisfaction. Prior to 2024, used EVs often commanded a premium, presenting an attractive investment for early adopters. However, this situation has drastically changed, with used EV values now depreciating significantly, which can feel like a substantial financial blow to those who were early to embrace the trend.
This downward pressure on depreciation is partly driven by automakers aggressively cutting prices on new EVs and offering substantial incentives to boost sales. When new models become more accessible financially, or come with appealing financing options such as lower interest rates and better lease deals than comparable gas cars, it inevitably impacts the value of their used counterparts. For instance, Nissan reduced prices by up to $6,000 on certain models to ‘improve the model’s competitiveness and ensure we are delivering maximum value to our customers.’ While this is great news for new car buyers, such actions can feel like a penalty for existing owners whose vehicle’s worth has suddenly diminished.
The market saturation and slower-than-anticipated adoption rates in certain segments contribute to an oversupply of used EVs, further driving down prices. Cox Automotive data, which excludes direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla and Rivian, indicates that the available inventory of electric vehicles in the United States, measured in days’ supply, has soared to 136 days, significantly higher than the overall U.S. industry average of 78 days for new vehicles. This oversupply, coupled with aggressive pricing on new models, makes reselling an EV less financially appealing than it once was, prompting owners to question the long-term economic viability of their purchase.
7. **Substantial Outlays for Home Charging**While often touted as a major benefit of EV ownership, the convenience of home charging comes with a hidden initial cost that can be a significant hurdle for many. For those transitioning from an ICE vehicle, the expectation is often that charging will seamlessly integrate into their home life. However, achieving optimal home charging capabilities frequently requires “substantial outlays” beyond the vehicle’s purchase price, as noted in the context, a factor that can contribute to a feeling of unexpected expense and complexity.
Most EV owners find that a standard 120-volt household outlet, while capable of charging an EV, does so at an extremely slow rate, often referred to as Level 1 charging. To gain practical charging speeds that allow for a full overnight charge or significant top-ups, a Level 2 charging station is typically necessary. This often involves installing a 240-volt outlet, similar to what a clothes dryer uses, and purchasing the charging equipment itself. Such electrical upgrades and equipment purchases can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the existing electrical setup and the charger chosen.
For homeowners with garages, particularly affluent ones with multiple car options, installing a dedicated home charging system is “beautiful,” as Karl Brauer points out, making EV use “never inconvenient for them.” However, for renters, those without garages, or individuals for whom these initial installation costs are a significant burden, home charging becomes less of an advantage and more of an additional financial and logistical challenge. This unexpected investment, not always clearly communicated or anticipated by new EV buyers, can contribute to the overall feeling that the “total costs of driving are too high,” reinforcing the desire for a simpler, less demanding ownership experience found in ICE vehicles.
8. **The Myth of Inevitable EV Loyalty and Buyer’s Remorse**The prevailing narrative surrounding electric vehicles often suggested a one-way street: once a driver experienced the benefits of an EV, they would be forever converted. However, recent findings from McKinsey & Co.’s Mobility Consumer Pulse for 2024 have dramatically challenged this assumption, revealing a significant segment of owners grappling with buyer’s remorse. The firm’s head of the Center for Future Mobility, Philipp Kampshoff, openly admitted his surprise, stating, “I didn’t expect that,” and confessing, “I thought, ‘Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer.’” This sentiment is particularly strong in the U.S., where a striking 46% of EV owners indicated they were likely to switch back to a gas-powered vehicle for their next purchase, with Australia reporting an even higher 49%. Globally, the average hovered at 29%, still a considerable figure.
This isn’t merely about practical frustrations; it delves into the psychological aspects of consumer satisfaction and loyalty. The ‘once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer’ belief has been thoroughly debunked by real-world experiences. As Ivan Drury, Edmunds director of insights, articulated, “Real-world concerns that consumers have voiced through the mainstream surveys are finally coming to fruition.” He emphasized how this “speaks to both current adoption rates that have stalled out, but also the idea that not everyone’s going to buy another.” For many, the initial enthusiasm has been replaced by a deep-seated negativity that is difficult to overcome.
The disillusionment is profound enough that for those who have experienced issues firsthand, such as insufficient range or battery degradation, the thought of another EV purchase is entirely unappealing. Drury noted, “For someone for whom it’s going to be the charging component, or maybe the range wasn’t good enough, or battery degradation. Maybe [EV buyers] experienced it firsthand, and it was so bad, and they lived in a cold weather state where they said, ‘You know, I’m never gonna buy one again.'” This psychological turning point is a critical challenge for the industry, far more complex than just addressing technical specifications; it’s about rebuilding fundamental trust and satisfaction.
9.The broader automotive market is currently experiencing a noticeable slowdown in EV adoption, a trend that has been widely reported in the mainstream media. As CNBC bluntly stated in a March report, ‘EV euphoria is dead.’ This shift in public sentiment has tangible repercussions for manufacturers, who are now reassessing their strategies. Major automakers, including Ford, GM, and Mercedes-Benz, are actively scaling back or postponing their ambitious electric vehicle plans, acknowledging that an ‘all-electric future’ is indeed on the horizon, but ‘at a much slower pace’ than initially projected.
One of the most visible indicators of this stalled demand is the significant build-up of electric vehicles on dealership lots. The collective voice of over 3,800 auto dealers across the United States underscored this issue in a letter to the Biden administration. They stated, “Today, the supply of unsold BEVs is surging, as they are not selling nearly as fast as they are arriving at our dealerships — even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives.” This stark reality on the ground highlights a major disconnect between production aspirations and actual consumer purchasing behavior.
Further reinforcing this market imbalance, Cox Automotive data, which excludes direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla and Rivian, shows that the available inventory of electric vehicles in the United States, measured in days’ supply, has soared to 136 days. This figure stands in sharp contrast to the overall U.S. industry average of 78 days for new vehicles, indicating a substantial oversupply of EVs. This glut of unsold vehicles, despite aggressive pricing adjustments and incentives from manufacturers like Nissan—which announced cuts of up to $6,000 on some models to “improve the model’s competitiveness”—demonstrates the profound challenges facing the EV market beyond individual owner frustrations.
10. **High Manufacturer Production Costs and Margin Pressure**The journey toward an all-electric future is proving to be a costly endeavor for automakers, with significant financial pressures impacting their profitability and strategic decisions. Ford, for instance, reported staggering losses per electric vehicle, topping $100,000 during the first quarter of this year alone. This figure was reportedly more than double the loss per electric vehicle from the previous year, underscoring the immense financial strain that EV production places on even well-established companies. Similarly, GM, despite reporting increased EV sales, is currently losing money on every electric vehicle it sells, though the company maintains it is on track to achieve mid-single-digit pretax profit margins by 2025 as production scales and battery costs decline.
At the heart of these financial struggles are the persistently high costs associated with manufacturing electric vehicles. Batteries, in particular, remain one of the largest and most expensive components in EV production. This substantial upfront cost for key materials and advanced manufacturing processes creates a formidable barrier to profitability, especially when compared to the well-established, optimized supply chains of internal combustion engine vehicles. The need for massive investments in new factories, research and development, and specialized labor further compounds these initial production expenses.
Ford CEO Jim Farley explicitly addressed this challenge, stating on an earnings call that the “math is completely different than ICE.” He explained that while in the ICE business, “the bigger the vehicle, the higher the margin,” the opposite is true for electric vehicles: “The larger the vehicle, the bigger the battery, the more pressure on margins because customers will not pay a premium for those larger batteries.” This insight highlights a fundamental economic hurdle for automakers, pushing them towards smaller, more affordable EV models to achieve volume and improve profitability, which in turn dictates what types of EVs are brought to market and at what price points.
11.The push to accelerate electric vehicle adoption in the United States has been significantly bolstered by governmental initiatives, particularly the Biden administration’s effort to establish a national charging network. Legislation enacted in 2021 allocated billions of taxpayer funds toward the ambitious objective of installing half a million charging stations across the U.S. by the end of this decade. This substantial investment was specifically designed to tackle the widespread problem of inadequate charging infrastructure, which is a major source of EV owner dissatisfaction.
However, the reality of implementation has fallen far short of these grand aspirations. Three years after the legislation was enacted and the funds committed, a sobering statistic emerged: only seven federally funded chargers have been built to date. This painfully slow progress has not only sparked widespread criticism, drawing “condemnation from both sides of the political aisle,” but also directly undermines the very foundation upon which mass EV adoption is supposed to be built. The disconnect between policy goals and tangible outcomes is a major systemic failure.
This governmental lag in delivering on its infrastructure promises directly intensifies the ‘real-world concerns’ voiced by EV owners, such as anxiety over charging availability and the complexities of long-distance journeys. Without a dependable, widespread, and rapidly expanding charging network, the practical hurdles to EV ownership remain stubbornly high. The failure to transform policy into tangible infrastructure at a meaningful pace inevitably fuels the perception that electric vehicles are not yet a practical primary choice for many, thereby reinforcing the desire to return to the familiar convenience of gasoline-powered cars. The government’s role in fostering a supportive ecosystem is crucial, and its current performance presents a significant obstacle.
12. **The Industry’s Pivot to Hybrids and PHEVs**In response to the evolving market realities and the significant hurdles faced by pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption, traditional automakers are strategically pivoting their electrification plans to include a broader range of options. General Motors, initially one of the most aggressive in pursuing an all-electric future, has now revised its strategy. The company plans to roll out plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) for consumers, offering them alongside its fully electric and traditional gasoline-powered cars, acknowledging the need for a more diversified approach to meet varied customer preferences and mitigate risks.
This shift is not isolated to GM; it reflects a broader industry trend. Other major automotive players, including Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, and potentially Volkswagen, are also planning to offer “different levels of electrification across their lineups.” This move signals a pragmatic recognition that a singular focus on BEVs may not capture the full spectrum of consumer demand or address all the existing infrastructure and cost challenges. Hybrids and PHEVs offer a transitional solution, providing some of the environmental and performance benefits of electric driving without the full commitment or logistical complexities of a pure EV.
For many consumers, particularly in the U.S., hybrids represent a less radical “lifestyle change” compared to an all-electric vehicle. Ford, for example, has backed off many of its aggressive EV targets, and is now actively producing hybrids—specifically trucks—alongside its electric vehicles and PHEVs for the American market. This industry pivot, driven by consumer feedback and the desire to cover losses from EV production with profits from internal combustion vehicles, demonstrates that traditional car companies are responding to what consumers seem to prefer in the near term: a blend of familiar convenience and incremental electrification, offering a vital bridge in the transition towards sustainable mobility.
13. **Divergent Loyalty Trends: The Tesla Effect vs. Legacy Automakers**A recent study by S&P Global Mobility has shed crucial light on the varied loyalty rates among electric vehicle owners, revealing a significant divergence in how different brands retain their EV customers. The study starkly illustrates that while many EV owners from legacy automakers are contemplating a return to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, Tesla owners exhibit a remarkably “fierce brand loyalty.” Tesla, the market leader, saw its EV loyalty increase substantially from 51.8% to an impressive 76.7%, indicating a strong propensity for its customers to purchase another EV, and specifically another Tesla.
This high loyalty for Tesla stands in contrast to the experience of owners from many traditional brands. The S&P Global Mobility study found that EV owners switching back to ICE vehicles often cited the “three classic arguments: pricing, infrastructure, and range anxiety.” For instance, among Ford Mustang Mach-E owners, only 37.3% purchased another EV, while a larger proportion, 45.8%, opted for an ICE vehicle for their next purchase, with many transitioning from a Ford truck or SUV in both ICE and hybrid powertrains.
However, the loyalty landscape among legacy brands is not uniform. Some, like Nissan, demonstrated stronger retention with 63.2% loyalty, and Chevrolet followed closely at 60.6%, with a significant number of Bolt owners choosing another Bolt or a Tesla Model Y. Luxury EV brands also saw increases in loyalty, though typically not reaching Tesla’s levels: Mercedes-Benz climbed from 24.3% to 56.6%, Jaguar from 25% to 56.5%, Audi from 25.5% to 50.1%, and Porsche from 23.3% to 36.8%. This data clearly underscores that “legacy ICE automakers are feeling the heat,” as Tom Libby, associate director for loyalty solutions at S&P Global Mobility, put it, highlighting their struggle to keep consumers committed to the electrified future as effectively as Tesla.
14.While the United States encounters considerable obstacles in EV adoption and retention, the global landscape offers a compelling contrasting perspective in Norway, often celebrated as an ‘EV Utopia.’ This nation, rich in oil, has made a strong commitment to energy transition objectives, setting an ambitious goal to exclusively sell zero-emission passenger cars starting in 2025. Norway’s achievements offer vital lessons on how a robust policy framework and dedicated investment in infrastructure can profoundly influence consumer behavior and brand loyalty.
The foundation of Norway’s success lies in its comprehensive suite of governmental policies designed to both deter gasoline vehicle purchases and incentivize EV ownership. These include “high taxes for gas vehicles and steep incentives for EV drivers, including free tolls, zero registration tax, and zero value-added tax.” These strong financial motivations, combined with significant investments in charging infrastructure, have created an environment where the economic and practical advantages of EVs are overwhelmingly clear to consumers, making the transition seamless and attractive.
The impact of these policies on owner loyalty is starkly evident when compared to the U.S. While a significant 46% of U.S.-based EV owners express a desire to switch back to ICEs, a mere 18% of Norwegian owners feel the same way. This dramatic difference, despite global EV drivers citing similar drawbacks like a “limited public supply of the fastest type of charger” and “broken chargers,” demonstrates the power of a well-executed governmental strategy. Norway’s experience underscores that with the right blend of incentives and infrastructure, it is entirely possible to create a market where EV ownership is not only practical but also deeply satisfying, offering a clear roadmap for nations seeking to accelerate their own electric transitions.
The path to widespread EV adoption is clearly more intricate than simply stepping onto an ‘all-electric future’ highway. The current situation is a complex mix of exciting technological advancements and frustrating practical challenges. As we’ve observed, the difficulties are varied, ranging from the technical details of charging infrastructure and battery technology to broader issues concerning government policies and shifting consumer attitudes. Nevertheless, despite these undeniable growing pains, the fundamental appeal of EVs persists. What these trends emphasize is not a rejection of electric mobility itself, but rather a consumer demand for a more seamless, affordable, and stress-free ownership experience. The way forward for automakers and policymakers is evident: heed these concerns, learn from both setbacks and successes, and continuously innovate to bridge the gap between the ideal and everyday reality. Only then can the automotive industry truly electrify its future, ensuring that driving remains a source of confidence and satisfaction, not regret.
