"It's a good thing my car still has a few years left in it. I'm not at the point where I have to replace it yet, otherwise I'd be really torn about what to get."
That is the honest truth from Fang Yuan (a pseudonym). When he bought a gasoline-powered Volvo XC60 in 2019, new energy vehicles were still a rare sight on the streets. But in just six or seven years, green-plated cars have become ubiquitous.
According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), new energy vehicles accounted for 51.2% of new car sales from January to July 2026, officially crossing the watershed mark of "half the market." In July alone, the share breached 60% for the first time. While the industry narrative that "internal combustion engine vehicles are exiting" grows more certain, hesitation and wait-and-see attitudes remain common in real purchasing decisions.
The Savings Math for EVs Has a Mileage Threshold
When discussing the benefits of EVs, "low operating costs" is usually the first point raised. With home charging, the cost per kilometer is less than 0.1 yuan. Compared to the 0.6 or 0.7 yuan per kilometer typical for gasoline cars, the EV seems like the better deal no matter how you calculate it.
But few people actively mention a prerequisite for this savings calculation: you have to drive enough. The economic efficiency of EVs isn't universal; there is a clear break-even line. The more you drive, the more worthwhile it becomes; the less you drive, the more likely you are to lose money.
Li Qingshan and Fang Yuan stand on opposite sides of this line.
The 60-year-old Li Qingshan (a pseudonym) travels frequently between urban and rural areas. Last year, he bought a nearly new used Wuling Hongguang MINIEV and has driven nearly 30,000 kilometers in less than a year. There are public charging piles at the entrance of his residential complex. Although the electricity price is higher than home charging, it is still much lower than gas prices. Compared to the past, when he was reluctant to drive due to fuel costs, he now takes this small car for almost every trip. His usage frequency has multiplied several times, yet he doesn't feel he's spending more money.
Fang Yuan, mentioned earlier, has a very short daily commute and travels frequently for business, so he rarely uses his car. In a year, his gasoline car doesn't even cover a few thousand kilometers. Although the large screens and assisted driving features on EVs tempt him every time he watches a new car launch, when it comes to the actual decision to switch, the first calculation he makes is whether the fuel savings at his usage rate can cover the gap in purchase price and insurance premiums. After crunching the numbers, it seems they cannot.
However, the trend of "price parity between oil and electricity" has been obvious in the past two years. The pricing of many domestic brand pure EV models has already matched that of joint-venture gasoline cars of the same class, with some even lower. Additionally, in 2026, the purchase tax for new energy vehicles was halved to 5% (with a tax reduction cap of 15,000 yuan per vehicle, meaning the actual tax rate for models with a pre-tax price of over 300,000 yuan will be higher than 5%), while gasoline vehicles remain at 10%. The purchase price gap has been further narrowed.
There are gains and losses in the usage phase. Regarding insurance, affected by battery repair costs, annual premiums for pure EVs are generally over 1,000 yuan higher than for gasoline cars of the same class. Maintenance, however, is an advantage for EVs; eliminating items like engine oil, filters, spark plugs, and transmission oil saves hundreds to over 1,000 yuan annually in maintenance costs.
Calculating the total bill over a five-year cycle: after deducting purchase tax incentives and maintenance savings, the sum of the remaining purchase price difference, the five-year insurance premium difference, and residual value loss determines whether the comprehensive holding cost of an EV is superior. It mainly depends on mileage. If you drive little, the insurance difference and residual value loss cannot be spread out, making it not necessarily a good deal.
AI-generated image; Source: Doubao
Looking at the difference in usage costs: in a home charging environment, the energy cost per kilometer for an EV is less than 0.1 yuan. For gasoline cars, based on current fuel prices, the cost per kilometer is generally above 0.5 yuan, saving more than 0.4 yuan per kilometer. But to break even, just calculating the fuel price difference isn't enough.
Rolling together the net purchase price difference, the extra insurance paid over five years, the saved maintenance fees, and the potential extra loss in residual value, there is usually a gap of 20,000 to 30,000 yuan that needs to be recovered through fuel savings for most models. Calculating at a saving of 0.4 yuan per kilometer, you have to drive 50,000 to over 70,000 kilometers. Averaged over 5 years, that means driving 10,000 to 15,000 kilometers a year to break even. For a few models with low pricing and good resale value, the threshold can drop to 7,000 or 8,000 kilometers, while those with high premiums and poor residuals require even more.
If there is no private charging and one relies solely on public fast charging, the cost per kilometer rises to 0.2 to 0.3 yuan. The price difference with gasoline cars shrinks significantly, and the mileage required to break even increases further.
This means that for users with significantly low annual mileage (e.g., within a few thousand kilometers), the "money-saving advantage" of EVs is hard to realize.
In reality, such users are not in the minority. Many urban office workers have one-way commutes of only three to five kilometers and rarely take long trips on weekends, racking up less than 8,000 kilometers a year. There are also many families' second cars, used only for grocery shopping and picking up kids, where mileage is even more limited. For them, the fuel savings from an EV may not offset the extra money spent at purchase, the higher annual insurance premiums, and the lower resale value when changing cars.
A common misconception is comparing the lowest operating cost of an EV with the highest operating cost of a gasoline car, while ignoring holding costs like purchase, insurance, and depreciation which account for a larger share. The "one mao per kilometer" repeatedly emphasized in industry marketing only calculates variable costs, not fixed costs.
The Hidden Math Beneath the Surface Is Harder to Calculate
The mileage math on the surface can always be calculated carefully if one is diligent. It is the factors hidden beneath the surface that are the real reason more people hesitate about EVs.
Zhang Hui (a pseudonym) has been driving her family's Skoda for over ten years, and her mindset represents this common sentiment. Her reason for wanting to change cars is specific: she can't drive a manual transmission, and she needs to pick up and drop off her child from school. But when it comes to whether to switch to a new energy vehicle, her concerns are very practical: expensive insurance, costly repairs, and the need to install a charging pile. Add all this up, and it's not necessarily cheaper.
These concerns are not prejudices born of "not knowing the ropes," but the most genuine decision-making considerations of ordinary consumers. Compared to tangible intelligent experiences, they fear invisible risks and expenses more.
Insurance is the first hurdle. According to industry insurance data, the average premium for new energy vehicles of the same price point is generally 15% to 20% higher than for gasoline cars. The more expensive the model, the more intelligent features it has, and the higher the parts-to-value ratio, the more obvious the difference. For some high-performance or high parts-to-value ratio models, the premium increase can even reach 20% to 30%.
The reason isn't complex. The cost of the "three-electric" system (battery, motor, control) is high, with the battery pack alone accounting for 30% to 50% of the vehicle's cost. Plus, the high integration means that if there's a collision, local repairs are often impossible; the whole unit must be replaced, costing a fortune in a single claim. Added to that is the inherently higher claim rate for new energy vehicles, and some commercial vehicles being insured as private vehicles, leading to high loss ratios. Insurers have no choice but to raise premiums.
Many people only stare at the car price when buying, feeling that EVs and gasoline cars are about the same, yet ignore this money paid every year. A difference of 2,000 yuan a year for a 200,000 yuan car adds up to over 10,000 yuan in five or six years, enough to offset a large portion of fuel savings.
Maintenance and residual value follow closely. Gasoline cars have developed for a century, and the parts system is highly mature; roadside repair shops can handle the vast majority of faults with transparent pricing. The technical barrier for EVs' three-electric systems is high, and most can only be serviced at 4S dealerships. When problems arise, repair fees aren't cheap.
Image source: 699pic
Some pure electric sedan owners report that original tires hit the safety limit after about 40,000 kilometers, a significantly shorter replacement cycle than when they drove gasoline cars. Moreover, the price of tires for EVs of the same specification is inherently higher than for gasoline car tires.
This is not an isolated case. The curb weight of pure electric models is generally 200 to 400 kilograms heavier than gasoline cars of the same class. Motors have high instantaneous torque and aggressive starts, placing greater load on tires and causing faster wear. At the same time, to balance range and quietness, EVs are generally equipped with specialized tires featuring low rolling resistance compounds and built-in noise-canceling cotton, leading to higher R&D and material costs, and naturally higher selling prices.
Industry data shows that in city commuting conditions, EV tires need replacement after about 30,000 to 50,000 kilometers, while gasoline cars can generally run 60,000 to 80,000 kilometers. However, tire replacement can't be judged by mileage alone: tires must be changed when tread wear reaches the safety line, and it is recommended to replace tires after 6 years of use even if the mileage hasn't been reached.
Regarding residual value, changes are also rapid. In past years, the three-year retention rate of new energy vehicles was significantly lower than that of gasoline cars of the same class, but the retention rate of top-selling models has caught up. Data from the first half of 2026 released by the China Automobile Dealers Association in conjunction with Jingzhengu shows that the three-year average retention rate for gasoline cars was 46.07%, while for new energy vehicles it was 44.8%. The overall gap has narrowed to about 1.3 percentage points.
It should be noted that this narrowing of the gap is not entirely due to rising retention rates of new energy vehicles; the retention rate of gasoline vehicles itself has also declined significantly in recent years, having reached 67.6% in 2022. Furthermore, the above is a three-year retention rate. When held for five years, factors like battery degradation and technological iteration may widen the EV residual value gap again. Specifically, there is significant divergence between brands and models: some cars can still fetch a good price after three years, while others may suffer heavy depreciation. For users planning to change cars after a few years, residual value remains a variable to watch.
Inescapable Worries: It's Not Just About the Money
If insurance, maintenance, and residual value are still money issues, there are other concerns that cannot be solved by spending money alone.
Safety anxiety is another inescapable hurdle. While spontaneous combustion in gasoline cars also happens, public concern about new energy vehicle fires is significantly higher. This is because the combustion characteristics of battery thermal runaway differ from traditional fuel line fires: the fire spreads fast, temperatures are high, and the risk of re-ignition is great. Once it happens, it is often accompanied by intense visual shock, and the amplification effect of social media turns every accident into a potential factor for decision-making rejection.
At the industry level, there has actually been continuous progress. The thermal management, thermal insulation and flame retardancy, and structural protection technologies for power batteries are iterating rapidly. The performance of new cars from most mainstream brands in crash tests is not inferior to gasoline cars, and the battery safety standards of some models even far exceed regulatory requirements.
But the problem lies in the significant gap between the speed of technological progress and the speed of public perception updates. A brand may have improved the safety performance of its new cars, but consumers might still remember a self-ignition video of an old model from a few years ago. This cognitive lag is itself a tangible decision-making cost that cannot be smoothed over by a few technical launch events.
Charging is another hard threshold. The premise of an EV's "ultimate money-saving" is owning a private charging pile. But the reality is that quite a few car owners in China live in older residential complexes without fixed parking spaces or rent their homes. Difficult property management approvals and insufficient grid capacity mean the percentage of people who can actually install a pile smoothly isn't high.
Data from the China Charging Alliance and the Ministry of Public Security shows that as of the end of 2025, there were 15.375 million private charging piles nationwide, while the ownership of new energy vehicles had reached 43.97 million in the same period. The car-to-pile ratio is close to 3:1, meaning a considerable proportion of car owners still do not have home charging conditions. Installing piles in newly built communities is relatively smooth, but property management approvals and capacity transformation in older communities remain major bottlenecks.
Public charging not only has higher electricity prices but also bears the time cost of finding piles, queuing, and waiting. Waiting after work on weekdays, and "one pile hard to find" on highways during holidays—these time and energy costs, converted into user costs, are actually quite high.
Image source: 699pic
There is another layer more easily overlooked: cognition and trust. Zhou Kai (a pseudonym) has also driven his family's gasoline car for over ten years. It's in stable condition, and he plans to drive it for a few more years. Talking about future car changes, he says he still prioritizes gasoline cars. The reason is simple: mature technology, high reliability, and peace of mind. He doesn't completely reject EVs, but he pays little attention usually and has limited understanding of the new energy brands on the market, always feeling unsure about choosing one.
This represents a considerable portion of existing gasoline car users. They are accustomed to the stable experience of traditional brands and have a clear understanding of the failure rates, maintenance costs, and service life of gasoline cars. In the new energy track, brands iterate quickly, new brands emerge endlessly, and some even exit the market rapidly. This sense of unfamiliarity and uncertainty is itself a decision-making threshold. Choosing a familiar gasoline car is essentially choosing a certainty that has been verified by the market and is predictable.
Choosing a Car Means Choosing Certainty, Not Taking Sides in a Route War
Calculating the cost accounts and digging deeper, one discovers a fact the industry easily overlooks. The core goal of many people changing cars is never to "buy a new energy vehicle," but to "change to a car that suits their life better."
Zhang Hui wants a car she can drive easily and use to pick up her child. Fuel or electric is not the first priority, just different paths to achieve the goal. Zhou Kai is satisfied with his current vehicle and has little motivation to switch; he won't disrupt his accustomed rhythm for the industry concept of "electrification."
The Chinese auto market is shifting from a growth phase to a replacement phase, and car-buyers are indeed more pragmatic. But the definition of pragmatism varies from person to person.
For users with home charging, mainly city commuting, and who value tech experience, EVs already provide sufficient certainty. But if it's the only family car, especially for frequent long-distance travel or use in frigid northern regions, pure EVs still have practical shortcomings in charging efficiency, winter range, and maintenance convenience. Plug-in hybrids and extended-range vehicles have grown rapidly in the last two years, precisely providing a "fuel-or-electric" middle option between pure EV and gasoline. For users with inconvenient charging who want to lower daily costs but occasionally travel long distances, this might be more suitable than either extreme.
For EVs to win over this group of users, comparing configuration parameters is of little significance. Unless issues directly linked to "security"—such as charging efficiency, winter range, and long-term reliability—are resolved, piling on features is useless.
The hot sales of the Wuling Hongguang MINIEV illustrate this point well. It sells well not because of the "new energy" concept, but because it precisely hits the rigid demand for short-distance commuting. Cheap, easy to drive and park, and low usage cost—it perfectly adapts to urban-rural travel and grocery runs. Users aren't buying a "smart EV," they are buying a "commuting tool that is more sheltered than an electric bicycle and cheaper to run than a gasoline car."
New energy is just the technological path to achieving low-cost commuting, not the purchase goal itself. The reverse is also true: many people don't choose EVs not because they deny electric technology, but because EVs don't match their core needs.
There is an inertial thinking in the industry that feels people who don't choose EVs just "haven't been educated yet," and that they will naturally transform once the charging network is denser and models are more abundant.
This judgment may be too optimistic. The first 50% penetration rate mainly converted users whose scenarios fit EVs: those with private piles, high mileage, high acceptance of new things, and also a considerable number of consumers driven by policies like green plates and purchase tax exemptions.
The remaining group isn't "still thinking it through"; they have already thought it through and calculated that it doesn't pay off. They won't change their annual mileage just because a few more charging piles are built, nor will they suddenly develop long-distance travel needs just because there are more models.
When the industry stops treating "replacing gasoline cars" as the only narrative and instead seriously addresses the real ledgers of different users, the growth space for EVs actually becomes clearer.
For high-frequency users with home charging conditions, the experience and economy of EVs indeed crush gasoline cars, and this part of the market will continue to expand. For low-frequency users with inconvenient charging, a worry-free gasoline car or hybrid product may be the more rational choice. Admitting this is far more valuable than shouting "gasoline cars are doomed" a hundred times.
A penetration rate of over half is not the time for celebration. The first leg of the journey rode the wave of growth; the second leg will be decided by who can do the math that resonates with the user.
(At the request of the interviewees, Fang Yuan, Li Qingshan, Zhang Hui, and Zhou Kai are all pseudonyms.)
