Efficient from a energy perspective != efficient from a convenience perspective.

Hydrocarbons are incredibly energy dense and cheap. It’s possible to pack so much more energy in such a lighter, more compact space with them that the overall vehicle can be dramatically lighter and have longer range at the same time.

Additionally, doing so is so cheap, it often more than makes up for any efficiency issues, especially if the comparatively better end to end efficiency (and lower pollution and maintenance costs) of a EV comes with convenience issues like reduced range, lack of infrastructure, etc.

For mid-sized commuter vehicles, it’s trending more and more towards EVs as prices drop, charging infrastructure improves, and usage patterns make it convenient (such as at-home or at-office charging).

It still has a way to go for things like commercial or heavy recreational trucks, RVs, etc. It also has a way to go in smaller vehicles like Motorcycles, where the reduced range (due to some pretty fundamental weight limits) makes them more suitable for moped like inner city commuting or very short range trips.

And that’s compared to normally aspirated gasoline. It’s harder still to beat diesel, especially if super/turbo charged which has better energy efficiency, higher energy density, and except for some jurisdictions cheaper fuel prices.

In what way?

Heavier vehicles cause exponentially more damage to roads. It’s not like building roads is an energy free exercise.

They are also significantly more dangerous in traffic collisions. That kinetic energy has to go somewhere when you crash.

Electric cars with current battery tech will only be a stop gap solution until we get something like induction in roads for longer distances.

Personally I think the Dutch and Danes have a better solution already with low tech bike infrastructure and electric or pedal bikes.

It’s cheaper, requires less maintenance and makes their populations healthier.