SAGMOTO i5 vs E9: Electric vs Diesel Light Truck Comparison for City Delivery

Electric versus diesel is a routing question before it is a technology question

Most electric-versus-diesel comparisons for light commercial vehicles begin with the wrong variable. They start with purchase price, then argue about battery degradation, and eventually produce a payback period that depends on assumptions nobody at the fleet has checked. The variable that actually decides the outcome is daily distance and stop density, because those two facts determine how much of the electric truck's advantage is actually harvested. An electric light truck running 60 km per day on a dense urban route is a completely different economic object from the same truck running 260 km per day on an intercity run.

SAGMOTO builds both sides of this comparison, which is useful for a buyer because it means the analysis is not being made to defend a single product. The SAGMOTO i5 is a battery-electric light truck built around a 98 kWh lithium iron phosphate battery pack. The SAGMOTO E9 is a conventional diesel light truck offered with Yuchai YC4FA engines in the 115 to 130 hp range and Yuchai YC4D engines in the 130 to 160 hp range. Both are intended for city and regional distribution work. One of them will be correct for a given fleet, and the correct one is determined by the route book rather than by the showroom.

Fleets evaluating electrification should also look at the wider SAGMOTO new energy electric trucks range, because the i5 is one point on a curve and the right entry point depends on how much of the fleet's work is already urban and predictable. This article works through the cost mechanics in detail so that the decision can be made with the fleet's own numbers rather than with a vendor's.

The two products at specification level

The table below sets out the specification level at which both models are positioned for export. Where a figure depends on configuration, body or operating conditions, it is marked as order-dependent or condition-dependent rather than filled with a single assumed value.

Two structural differences deserve emphasis because they drive everything that follows. The first is energy cost per kilometre. Electricity purchased at an industrial depot tariff is cheaper per unit of useful work than diesel almost everywhere, and the gap is widest in markets with subsidised industrial power or high diesel taxation. The second is maintenance structure. The i5 removes the entire engine service stream: no oil, no fuel filters, no belts, no exhaust aftertreatment, and dramatically reduced brake wear because regenerative braking does most of the deceleration work in stop-and-go duty.

Energy and maintenance cost per kilometre

The table below sets out indicative cost per kilometre for both vehicles under a city delivery profile. These are planning figures built on stated assumptions, not quotations, and the assumptions are shown so that a fleet can substitute its own local prices. The electric consumption assumption for a light truck in urban delivery duty is 0.55 to 0.75 kWh per km; the diesel assumption for the same duty is 12 to 18 litres per 100 km.

Taken at the mid-point of both ranges, the electric truck runs at roughly USD 0.15 per km against roughly USD 0.26 per km for the diesel, a saving in the order of USD 0.11 per km. That figure is the engine of the whole business case, and it is worth stating plainly what it depends on. It depends on the fleet actually charging at depot tariff rather than at public fast-charge rates, on the route being dense enough for regeneration to contribute, and on the battery remaining within its warranty envelope. It does not depend on any subsidy, grant or carbon credit, and it should not be modelled with one.

Where the ranges come from and how to narrow them

The width of those ranges is honest rather than evasive, and a serious buyer should narrow them with local data. Three inputs matter most. The first is the real depot electricity tariff including demand charges, which in many markets is substantially higher at peak hours and can be halved by scheduled overnight charging. The second is ambient temperature: an electric truck in a hot climate spends more energy on cab cooling, and one in a cold climate loses battery efficiency and heats the cab resistively, so a fleet in a 40 C city and a fleet in a 5 C winter city will see different numbers from the same vehicle. The third is payload and stop density, because a route with 60 stops per shift behaves very differently from a route with 12.

Break-even distance: how many kilometres per year does the i5 need?

The break-even question is the one finance directors ask, and it has a clean answer. The i5 carries a higher acquisition cost than the E9, and it recovers that premium through lower running cost per kilometre. The break-even annual distance is the point at which the accumulated running-cost saving equals the acquisition premium, ignoring financing and residual value for the moment so the mechanism is clear.

Assume an acquisition premium for the electric truck of USD 18,000 to USD 28,000 over a comparable diesel light truck, which is a realistic range for a 98 kWh class vehicle in export markets before any local incentive. Assume a running-cost saving of USD 0.08 to USD 0.14 per km. The break-even annual distance is then the premium divided by the saving per kilometre: USD 18,000 at USD 0.14 per km is 128,600 km per year; USD 28,000 at USD 0.08 per km is 350,000 km per year. In other words the break-even band for the i5 against the E9 runs from roughly 130,000 km per year in the most favourable conditions to roughly 350,000 km per year in the least favourable.

Those are large numbers for a light truck, and they are the reason the honest answer for many fleets is a mixed fleet rather than a wholesale conversion. A light truck working 250 operating days per year reaches 130,000 km at about 520 km per day, which is more than most city delivery routes cover. Reaching that distance requires either two shifts per day or a route profile that is regional rather than purely urban. Buyers should therefore treat the break-even calculation as a route-filtering tool: the routes that clear the threshold go electric first, and the rest stay diesel until the economics or the regulation changes.

Routing profiles: which routes should go electric first

The practical method is to sort the fleet's routes by three attributes and electrify from the top. The first attribute is daily distance predictability. A route that varies between 90 and 240 km per day is a poor electric candidate regardless of the average, because the vehicle has to be specified for the worst day and then carries unused battery capacity on every other day. A route that reliably covers 110 to 130 km per day is an excellent candidate because the battery can be sized to the work.

The second attribute is stop density. A parcel or beverage distribution route with 50 to 90 stops per shift is the ideal electric duty: low average speed, constant deceleration, and long dwell time during which a diesel engine either idles or is restarted repeatedly. The i5 recovers energy on every one of those decelerations and consumes nothing while the driver is at the door. The third attribute is return-to-base certainty. Any route that reliably returns to the depot at the end of shift can be charged on depot tariff, which is the single largest lever on the energy cost line.

Read as a portfolio rather than a list, that table suggests a realistic electrification path. Most mixed distribution fleets can move 30 to 50 percent of their route book to the i5 immediately without operational risk, retain the E9 for regional and variable work, and revisit the remainder as charging infrastructure and battery costs move. That is a far more defensible plan than a full conversion, and it is the plan that survives contact with a route book.

Charging infrastructure and the operational prerequisites

An electric truck is only as good as the charging plan behind it, and the charging plan is a capital project that must be scoped before the vehicles are ordered. For a fleet of ten i5 units, overnight AC depot charging at 11 to 22 kW per vehicle is normally sufficient: a 98 kWh pack recharging from 20 to 100 percent overnight requires roughly 5 to 9 hours at those power levels, which fits inside any normal depot window. The prerequisite is electrical capacity, not charger sophistication. A ten-vehicle depot needs an additional connected load in the order of 110 to 220 kW, and in many industrial areas that requires a transformer upgrade with a lead time measured in months.

Depot charging should be managed rather than uncontrolled. Scheduled charging that starts after the tariff peak, with a per-vehicle current limit set in the controller, both reduces the energy bill and avoids the demand charge spike that can erase the entire fuel saving. A basic load management controller costs a small fraction of the fleet's annual energy spend and typically pays back inside a year.

For fleets running two shifts or mid-day top-ups, a DC charger in the 60 to 120 kW range at the depot changes the operating model substantially, allowing a partial recharge during a driver break. The capital cost is higher and the grid connection requirement rises accordingly, but for high-utilisation urban fleets it is what makes a single vehicle cover two shifts. The decision should be made on utilisation, not on ambition: a truck that covers 130 km per shift does not need mid-day charging, and installing it anyway is wasted capital.

Battery life, warranty and residual value

Lithium iron phosphate chemistry is well suited to commercial vehicle duty. LFP cells tolerate deep cycling better than most alternative chemistries, have a long cycle life before capacity falls below the usual 80 percent threshold, and are thermally stable, which matters in hot-climate markets where an export fleet will operate. For a 98 kWh pack in daily commercial service, the practical expectation is that capacity remains adequate for the vehicle's designed duty across a normal commercial ownership period, provided the fleet avoids routine charging to 100 percent followed by long storage at full charge in high ambient temperatures.

Battery warranty terms should be read carefully and compared on the same basis: the covered period, the covered retained capacity threshold, and whether the remedy is repair, module replacement or full pack replacement. A warranty that promises 70 percent retained capacity over eight years is materially different from one that promises 80 percent over five, and the difference is worth money at resale. Residual value for electric light trucks is still a developing market in most export destinations, and buyers should model it conservatively rather than assuming parity with diesel residuals.

Maintenance reality is more encouraging than the warranty fine print. The i5's service stream is predominantly tyres, brakes at extended intervals, suspension, steering, coolant for the battery thermal circuit, and software. Fleet workshops that currently stock engine oil, filters, belts and aftertreatment components will find that consumable inventory falls substantially per electric vehicle, and the technicians' time shifts from engine service to electrical diagnostics and chassis work. That transition requires training, and it should be budgeted as part of the project rather than discovered in month three.

Conclusion

The SAGMOTO i5 and the SAGMOTO E9 are complementary rather than competing products, and a fleet that buys both intelligently will outperform a fleet that buys either exclusively. The i5, with its 98 kWh LFP pack, is the correct choice for dense urban routes with predictable daily distance and reliable return-to-base operation, where regeneration, low-speed duty and depot tariff charging combine to produce a running-cost advantage in the order of USD 0.08 to USD 0.14 per km. The E9, with Yuchai YC4FA 115 to 130 hp or YC4D 130 to 160 hp, remains the correct choice for regional legs, variable routing, site work and any operation without dependable depot charging.

The break-even arithmetic is the discipline that prevents expensive mistakes. At an acquisition premium of USD 18,000 to USD 28,000 and a saving of USD 0.08 to USD 0.14 per km, a route needs to cover somewhere between 130,000 and 350,000 km per year to justify electrification on pure operating cost. Routes that clear that threshold should be converted first. Routes that do not should stay diesel, unless a regulatory or customer requirement makes the emissions profile worth paying for.

The practical next step is a route audit rather than a vehicle quotation. Send us your route book with daily distances, stop counts and return-to-base certainty, together with your local diesel price and depot electricity tariff, and our export team will model both vehicles against your actual duty cycle and return a specification, a charging plan sized to your depot, and a five-year cost comparison you can take to a board.