Honda Says Making Cheap Electric Vehicles is Too Hard, Ends Deal With GM (arstechnica.com) 181
The previously announced joint collaboration between Honda Motor and General Motors to develop a platform for affordable electric vehicles (EVs) has been cancelled, the firms said today. Initially publicized in April 2022, the collaboration aimed to produce lower-cost EVs for the North American, South American, and Chinese markets, with the first models expected to roll out in 2027. However, the companies disclosed that they have mutually agreed to disband the project. ArsTechnica: "After extensive studies and analysis, we have come to a mutual decision to discontinue the program. Each company remains committed to affordability in the EV market," Honda and GM said in a joint statement. "After studying this for a year, we decided that this would be difficult as a business, so at the moment we are ending development of an affordable EV," said Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe in an interview with Bloomberg. "GM and Honda will search for a solution separately. This project itself has been canceled," Mibe said.
The now-canceled platform was supposed to use GM's Ultium batteries. GM debuted Ultium in 2020 as its third-generation lithium-ion cell, developed together with LG Chem. At the time, GM CEO Mary Barra said that Ultium cells would drop below the $100/kWh barrier "early in the platform's life." In 2022, the first Ultium-based EVs went into production -- the GMC Hummer EV, the Cadillac Lyriq, and the BrightDrop Zevo 600. Ultium cells were supposedly ready for mass production, but GM and LG Chem are struggling to make that a reality. In July, GM had to idle BrightDrop's production line in Canada due to a shortage of battery cells, and Kelly Blue Book's sales data for the first three quarters of 2023 show that just 6,920 Ultium-based EVs (which include the Chevrolet Blazer and Silverado EV, as well as the Hummer, Lyriq, and BrightDrop van) were delivered to customers.
The now-canceled platform was supposed to use GM's Ultium batteries. GM debuted Ultium in 2020 as its third-generation lithium-ion cell, developed together with LG Chem. At the time, GM CEO Mary Barra said that Ultium cells would drop below the $100/kWh barrier "early in the platform's life." In 2022, the first Ultium-based EVs went into production -- the GMC Hummer EV, the Cadillac Lyriq, and the BrightDrop Zevo 600. Ultium cells were supposedly ready for mass production, but GM and LG Chem are struggling to make that a reality. In July, GM had to idle BrightDrop's production line in Canada due to a shortage of battery cells, and Kelly Blue Book's sales data for the first three quarters of 2023 show that just 6,920 Ultium-based EVs (which include the Chevrolet Blazer and Silverado EV, as well as the Hummer, Lyriq, and BrightDrop van) were delivered to customers.
Suspicious timing (Score:2)
Re:Suspicious timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure Motor Trend never takes advertising dollars into account with regard to their "XYZ" of the Year awards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Wednesday, MotorTrend named the all-electric Chevy Blazer its SUV of the year."
They probably invented a new category of cars so it could win. A category with a name like "Electric Chevy Blazers".
"The Chevy Blazer EV is the top Electric Chevy Blazer of the year, beating all the other Electric Chevy Blazers in this category"
Re: Suspicious timing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Chevy Blazer EV was just named SUV of the year. The timing seem suspicious. "Wednesday, MotorTrend named the all-electric Chevy Blazer its SUV of the year."
SUV of the year, isn't that like saying "I have gonorrhoea, the best of the venereal diseases".
Battery shortages all over (Score:5, Informative)
> GM had to idle BrightDrop's production line in Canada due to a shortage of battery cells
With all the car co's trying to ramp up EV production at the same time, there's a shortage of battery-related components. It may take several years for supply to correct itself.
Re:Battery shortages all over (Score:5, Insightful)
Tracking the EV battery factory construction boom across North America [techcrunch.com]
Yeah it's gonna be another 2-5 years before we really see how this will all shake out. Definite lack of supply today so prices are still high.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battery shortages all over (Score:5, Informative)
Or we just start circling back to hydrogen. Opposition from the oil companies is the only real obstacle that we faced in the 00's. Companies such as United Nuclear were trying to do it.
I have no love for oil companies, but the challenge with hydrogen for vehicle fuel is primarily that nobody has come up with a good solution for storing it, not "opposition from the oil companies."
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fu... [energy.gov]
Oil companies are not attacking hydrogen at the moment, because right now it's sourced from natural gas, and oil companies also produce natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god you have that sig, or I would have thought you were a fucking idiot. Well played!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of a NH3 FCEV do you find unfeasible?
The part about using natural gas for the hydrogen.
If we are using natural gas to make ammonia then we may as well burn natural gas for fuel in the cars since that would be cheaper, simpler, and have no greater detrimental impact on CO2 emissions than using natural gas for the ammonia.
If we have a low cost, low CO2, and abundant, source of hydrogen then we could use that hydrogen to synthesize carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline, diesel fuel, and methane (the primary component of natural gas), and
Re: (Score:2)
P
Re: (Score:2)
I think they said they solved the ignition problems here in recent years, seems that might be a viable option if so...Ammonia is pretty easy to come by, right?
Re: (Score:3)
I can't imagine the refueling smell or even process, as it's one of the worst. I could be wrong, perhaps your car won't smell like bad sweat and you wouldn't need a breathing mask to refuel, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
Ammonia is made industrially by combining hydrogen and nitrogen at high pressures & temperatures in the presence of a catalyst. The hydrogen used is almost always derived from methane. So a lot of CO2 is made in ammonia's production.
Maybe they solved the ignition problem, but what about the nitrogen oxides produced when burning ammonia? That would seem to be a bigger problem.
Re: Battery shortages all over (Score:2)
I wonder if you can solve that the same way they do in diesels, with urea injection... Which is problematic but works
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great, so anyone living within a half-mile of a freeway will have to endure a constant smell of cat piss coming from traffic, just so we can continue locally burning shit to move down a road.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a better idea then I'm sure there's a lot of people willing to listen. I say we synthesize hydrocarbon fuels. Not an ideal solution but there is no ideal solution. We can only choose the least bad option.
Re: (Score:2)
The better idea is called an "electric vehicle". No pollution emitted as you drive it around, and electricity is available just about everywhere, unlike ammonia. In fact, electricity is even available off the grid!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't own an electric vehicle though, and given the high sticker price and low volume of production of electric vehicles I expect that I'm but one of billions of vehicle owners that will not be getting an electric vehicle any time soon. My guess is we will get to carbon neutral fuels before we get to carbon neutral electric grid and enough BEV production to meet demand for new vehicles, that would especially apply to large vehicles where battery power is impractical.
Rather than debate ICEV or BEV over an
Re: (Score:2)
Ammonia is pretty easy to come by, right?
The process to produce ammonia has been well developed over time, ammonia has been produced on industrial scales for somewhere around 100 years. It is used widely as a fertilizer, solvent, refrigerant, and so much else. Use as a fuel is pretty limited so while produced in large quantities we'd have to produce ammonia on an entirely different level to replace hydrocarbon fuels.
While ammonia contains no carbon, so burning it as a fuel would not emit CO, the primary source of the hydrogen in ammonia today is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no shortage of uranium and uranium to mine, or shortage of decommissioned weapons to get plutonium. We don't have to import nuclear fuel from anywhere, only remove some of the insane regulations preventing nuclear fuel production in the USA. There's plenty of sane regulations on nuclear power that we should keep so don't take this as some kind of demand for a free-for-all on nuclear power, only that we have some insane regulations that do nothing to improve public safety but do plenty to increase
Re: Battery shortages all over (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burning synthesized hydrocarbon has problems.
Of course it does because every option we have before us has problems. What we have to do is pick the option with the least problems, and I believe that option is synthesized fuels for most cases. We can and should keep trying BEVs as an option, and certainly PHEVs. We can and should test out ammonia as a fuel, fuel cells, and whatever else we can think up.
We already know that powering aircraft with anything but kerosene will create all kinds of problems. There's not much else that offers the same kind
Re: (Score:3)
I understand how non-technical people can keep clinging to hydrogen but it always surprises me when technical people on slashdot do so as well.
So the issue is the demand for components and infrastructure is slowing EV. That is to say with component manufacturing in place, the technology relatively mature and proven and infrastructure available, albeit not necessarily at the scale needed.
And along comes you, touting hydrogen with almost literally no infrastructure in place, the technology not matured and pro
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - for anyone who still believes hydrogen is going happen just look at EngineeringExplained on youtube there are videos there that have the state of the art from both BMW and Toyota. There are major obstacles to practical applications for any kind of consumer vehicle and the only road maps to overcoming them have a big question mark with 'any than near magical even in materials science happens' under it.
Hydrogen might happen at the race track but it will not happen in your garage get over it.
ICE in
Re: (Score:2)
" Get people onto ebikes, scooters, moving pedestrian walks everywhere that makes sense in stead of sitting in traffic fighting static friction 1000s of times.."
What about weather. Do you live somewhere where it doesn't rain or snow, or have wind and cold? (or have extreme heat for part of the year)
Re: (Score:2)
Places like MPLS and Louisville have extensive sky walks between buildings. You can walk around a lot of downtown without going out in the elements at all. Add some moving belts and the fattest and laziest can "walk" because they won't actually have to.
You should not end up smelling/sweaty on an e-bike or scooter. All you are doing is keeping your balance the motor is doing all the work. Groceries its a called a basket and/or one of those racks over the read wheel with some milk crates bolted to that.
Sur
Re: (Score:2)
The only way this works if if we all lived in massive structures all set on top of and next to each other. I'll assume (I know, I know) that you've seen a typical suburban town in USA. They all look very similar and are typically not close to a grocery store or other entertainment. The old folks will not be getting on a scooter. They will not be installing MILES of moving belts. It's not happening. Covered moving sidewalks that cover every US town is never going to happen. We both know this.
technically, it
Re: (Score:2)
You are not going to get the average American on a bicycle. It's not happening. Dead stop. To lazy and to fat. They'll smell after the bike ride.
The suggestion was for electric powered bikes and scooters, not bicycles that need to be pedaled.
If they are too lazy for a scooter then they are too lazy to drive anything. If they are too fat for a scooter then... well, perhaps build more durable scooters. If they smell after a ride on a scooter then they picked up something from the open air, which might not be bad if there's enough green space along the EV lanes for trees and flowers. Around here in the Midwest USA people can pick up the odors of ani
Re: (Score:2)
To be QUITE frank, I think yours is a pipe dream...
A LITERAL pipe dream. A million miles of pipes dream.
To move to hydrogen, we have to replicate our ENTIRE gasoline production, transportation, and distribution network. Other than the ground that it all rests on, not a single part of the gasoline network can handle hydrogen as-is. Not the tanks, pipes, pumps, seals, gauges, engines, any of it!
When people propose hydrogen, I just don't understand what they're thinking. There is nowhere near enough financial incentive to replicate the entire fuel production
Re: (Score:2)
...we'd probably gain much more by investing into ebike infrastructure...
That sounds great for people that are young, childless, live in a mild climate, and carry little to nothing for tools or materials for their work. My mom gets around just fine generally but has balance issues, so a bike isn't exactly a good idea. Maybe a three wheeled "trike" instead, or something four wheeled like a golf cart? That might stretch the definition of an e-bike a bit let's go with that. What of times there's some rain, snow, cold, heat, etc. that comes with living in the Midwest USA? Put
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Could be the case but with all those factories under construction the industry is in transition currently. If 2030 rolls around and EV's are still expensive then for sure there is an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... cool the planet by other means than reducing emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a shortage of battery-related components
There is only so much Lithium. These shortages will not work themselves out. This is exactly what many people like myself have been warning everyone about. Batteries are mining intensive things and ramping up their production when based upon limited supplies of raw materials isn't possible. If you have a space elevator, these things might become possible again, but not economical.
Too hard or too stupid? (Score:3)
Why is GM starting with it's heaviest vehicles and adding battery weight?
Seems like these can't be affordable EVs either - Cadillac? Hummer?
Re:Too hard or too stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because GM sucks.
They chose nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum batteries which are inferior to LifePO4 batteries anyone with common sense should use.
Obviously Honda engineers are not that stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
The Honda e (not available in the US) is terrible. An economy car that costs 10,000 euros more than a Tesla. Their upcoming truck is based on a GM design. I don't think their engineers are stupid, but Honda as a company is not doing well at adapting to the EV future.
Re: Too hard or too stupid? (Score:5, Informative)
Honda E also has a miserable 80 miles of range making it zero use for mid or long distance. Who's going to pay that money for a shopping and short commute car?
Re: (Score:2)
They are doing better in the Hybrid market. I am pretty sure you can get most of their vehicles as a hybrid though probably not a plug in hybrid (that'd be ideal). The one car they did have that was a plug-in was canceled a few years ago unfortunately.
I drive a 2019 Insight and love it. 50mpg and it's basically a civic. Now it's discontinued but you can buy a civic or accord as a hybrid so it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
They chose nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum batteries which are inferior to LifePO4 batteries anyone with common sense should use.
While that's true now, people often forget that a vehicle's production timeline is often spread over 7-10 years. Sourcing of materials for the battery chemistry and the buildout the factories to build those batteries would have been decided a decade, or more, ago. A decade ago everyone knew about LiFPO4 batteries, but the chemistry was also fairly new and energy densities weren't that high compared to the standard LiON cells everyone else was using in their EVs.
It's only been a recent change, thanks to co
Re: Too hard or too stupid? (Score:2)
LFP is a type of lithium ion battery.. There is no one standard type. Half of Teslas sold in the US today use LFP.
Re:Too hard or too stupid? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is GM starting with it's heaviest vehicles and adding battery weight?
It's the standard "top down" approach most automakers take. Build out the expensive products which have high margins, use the profits from that to fix early process bugs and create the scale needed to get costs down for the mass market products with lower margins.
Re: (Score:2)
It's taken over 20 years for most car companies to even start making EVs at all. At this rate, we should finally start getting affordable EVs in... 30 years or so.
Hopefully that's 30 real years and not 30 fusion years.
Re: (Score:2)
Telsa started with a high margin but light roadster and then moved to lower margin heavier family cars and then trucks. Grandparent is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too hard or too stupid? (Score:2)
A better reason is that they are shit.
GM electrical is trash.
Ford engines are trash, except maybe Coyote.
Dodge everything is trash, except the Cummins diesel. Cummins is owned by Ford but the agreement to avoid antitrust is that they can't use the engines in their own trucks. No other diesel would ever sell again.
Re:Too hard or too stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because GM can't sell smaller cars economically. They kept trying and failing. It's big cars or die for them.
Re: Too hard or too stupid? (Score:2)
GM can't make smaller cars worth a crap. They even licensed tech from Nissan, and used it to build Saturn vehicles. A real Nissan is a much better car, the worst Nissan econobox is better to drive than the best Saturn.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, GM's best small cars were badge engineered, like the Geo series, where GM rebadged a Toyota Corolla as the Geo Prizm.
However, In the Buick and Cadillac lines, GM has a lot of Chinese imports (for example, the Buick Envision) under their name. Who knows how long parts will be available.
Other than the 'Vette, the full sized body-on-frame van, and 2500/3500 pickups, (again IMHO), there are just far better options available elsewhere. If I want a small, reliable car, I'd go to Toyota or Honda. If I wan
Re: (Score:2)
Because battery weight the primary source of the weight.
It's a proportionate thing. Short of doing what Tesla did and making a massively overbuilt aluminum frame to hold it all, most vehicle designs don't have the structural strength to hold the significant weight of EV batteries. By using "truck" chassis, it solves that problem.
They could've done smaller vehicles with it, but then you'd just end up with a small "truck" chassis at a similar weight, without any of the utility.
Keep in mind, all the automakers
Re: Too hard or too stupid? (Score:2)
The lightning has a lighter and more expensive chassis, but it's still a full frame, so essentially still a real pickup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is GM starting with it's heaviest vehicles and adding battery weight?
Seems like these can't be affordable EVs either - Cadillac? Hummer?
Maybe to avoid direct competition with Tesla? Yes, Tesla has or will have the Cybertruck, but it's not clear how successful the Cybertruck will be. GM and Ford already dominate the US truck market, so electric truck offerings could potentially build off the already huge market mindshare.
Targeting expensive cars that would be yet more expensive is just following the strategy that Tesla followed. Interestingly, this is the opposite of Christensen's disruptive innovation paradigm which says that the way to
Re: (Score:2)
The challenge is nobody actually knows how to build a bottom end market BEV, that isn't a complete toy, see iMev, and actually manages to be any fun.
Actually its the same crisis the performance market has been facing for quite some time. The barrier to entry has just got to high. Just to create a rolling chassis that will meet DOT requirements prices you out of what any 17 year old kids is going be able to afford on his cheese burger flipping salary after school.
BEVs just make it even tougher. You used to
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody besides fleet managers wants to buy a GM car.
Lithium (Score:2)
Lithium is the biggest unknown when it comes to EVs. It sounds like it's prime for another resource war/monopoly situation. To be clear .. the situation is not going to be as F'd long term as oil .. but my guess is until we've reach EV saturation and recycling maturity, lithium is going to get very expensive. Any EV company needs to make sure they can secure a supply of Lithium.
Re: (Score:3)
Lithium is quite abundant in the Earth's crust and there's very little needed - according to Musk - by amount Lithium is like salt in a salad, additionally this element doesn't go anywhere and is recoverable from batteries - with scale this process should be viable: https://cleantechnica.com/2023... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And lose 20 to 30% of capacity? Maybe, but the EV should be dirt cheap if that was the deal. Anyway, we aren't going to "run out" of lithium. Its suppliers may collude to charge a ton of money for it, but we aren't going to run out. The risk is from monopolistic takeover either by governments or companies. With the world's current proven 22 million tonnes of reserves, we'd get 2.8 billion EVs -- that's double the current number of vehicles in the world. Plus there's a many times more than that in reserves t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to multiple sources discovered by Googling, a Tesla Model Y has around 10 to 15 kg of lithium. Reference: https://ts2.space/en/how-much-... [ts2.space]
I googled lithium content Tesla model Y. You have a source for the off by 100x figure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Dude a battery isn’t a chunk of lithium with wires sticking out of it. There is electrolyte, there is anode material, there is structural elements. But hey let’s not trust literally all of the internet and textbooks. Let’s logic this. We’ll assume it’s a LiCoO battery (which is the most efficient currently). Well in the LiCoO itself the lithium atomic mass is 6, Cobalt is 59, Oxygen is 16. That already means the weight of lithium in the cathode is 8 percent of just the ano
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you run 'out' of Lithium, just use another element from same group - Sodium for example. Its in saltwater, sweat, and just about any spit. Stop trying to solve problems that don't exist.
Tell me you don't have any knowledge about a topic without telling me you don't. Success!
Except it's true: there are also sodium-based batteries. Not quite a simple as "just take a lithium cell and use sodium instead," but electrochemically sodium substitutes for lithium, and there are sodium analogs of the lithium batteries. They have lower energy storage per unit mass, but since the mass of lithium isn't the majority of the mass of the battery, it's not as bad as simply looking at the atomic weight.
Still probably a better solution for stationary power systems, where mass is less of an issue,
Re: (Score:2)
When engineering matters (Score:5, Interesting)
So, it looks like Elon Musk's approach was right after all. Tesla and BYD can make money selling BEVs. What's wrong with GM and Toyota?
Engineering.
A couple of months ago I was looking at one of Sandy Munro's videos and in this one they were tearing down a GM battery pack. It was one of the most horrifically complex and heavy constructions that I can imagine for such a purpose. No wonder that in order to get the range they wanted to announce they would just stuff more and more batteries into it, no matter the weight.
And it is no surprise that they can't make a marketable BEV at a profit with that approach. But awesome Superbowl ads. So there's that.
At the same time Tesla is starting to ship their structural battery packs, which reduce weight and cost. The Munro video for that tear down started with them sitting in the chairs that were affixed battery pack. Less weight. Simpler to manufacture. And as of that "disastrous" earnings call a few days ago what goes unnoticed is that Tesla's cost/vehicle has been reduced to around $37,000. Nobody pursues cost reductions at the design and manufacturing level the way Tesla does. The battery pack is just one example of it.
As long as the established auto makers continue to treat BEVs as an annoying side show this relationship will continue to be a problem for them. If they want to carve out a piece of Tesla's pie, they are going to have to make a full-in engineering commitment.
Re:When engineering matters (Score:4, Interesting)
> At the same time Tesla is starting to ship their structural battery packs, which reduce weight and cost. The Munro video for that tear down started with them sitting in the chairs that were affixed battery pack. Less weight. Simpler to manufacture.
But is it easier to replace isolated-failing batteries? or fix chairs? Easier-to-manufacture is not the same as easy to maintain.
Re:When engineering matters (Score:4, Interesting)
But is it easier to replace isolated-failing batteries? or fix chairs? Easier-to-manufacture is not the same as easy to maintain.
This raises a good question, but to answer it you have to look at the bigger picture. Not only the battery pack, but the giga-casting is a cost cutting measure that reportedly makes a bent frame hard to repair.
With the way insurance works and the costs of auto repairs these days, many cars are totaled that a decade or two back would have been repaired. Tesla's response seems to be OK, if that is the way that service sector works now we might as well replace bent cars instead of trying to repair them. The serviceability trade-offs of the battery pack seem to fit right in with that response.
Making n an EV is easy (Score:2)
You don't have to do emissions tuning. And if you're Volkswagen you don't have to cheat, then fail to cover up your emissions.
In the US we have a major underutilization of manufacturing. Many assembly plants have lines that are idle or have suspended shifts.
Ultimately if you want manufacture a cheap EV, you have to compromise somewhere. Cutting the range with a smaller battery can have a huge impact on price, as reduced weight, less current needed to the motor, smaller brake rotors, and easier to achieve go
There's a strike, too. So when is Strike 3? (Score:2)
If the strike doesn't end, there's going to be a more major under-utilization of manufacturing.
This thing might wind-up with the Big 2 + the Foreign OverLord just closing shop and selling the factory assets to foreign companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
full range EVs really struggle in crash and safety tests, and it makes them expensive. Which is why I believe you'd need to be a very low range vehicle to have a chance at building a cheap EV.
"Honda says" seems inaccurate (Score:4, Insightful)
Article states that the companies "mutually agreed". As well as other articles I've read on the subject.
"Honda says" seems inaccurate, and didn't belong in the title.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe, but there seems to be a huge difference between what the companies are doing.
Honda seems to be withdrawing, while GM is reallocating the resources to a new Volt.
that said, I'm not sure how much sense it made in the first place--GM had some battery tech, and the only other thing either seemed to bring to the table was experience making cars in general.
hawk
"Too hard" (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet other car companies manage it. Perhaps if Honda hadn't sat on its ass for the last 10 years spreading FUD about EVs, and pushing nonsense about hydrogen while watching its lunch get eaten it wouldn't be in this situation now.
Honda is already looking past GM (Score:2)
Looks like Honda's already going out on their own with EVs, very recently introducing that they're bringing back the Prelude [motor1.com], EV style. Having been a Prelude owner for 20 years, I think it's a great move. Maybe not "cheap", but it will likely be received very well by the consumer market.
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago, I had thought that internal organs don't feel pain and hadn't bothered with the nerves for that.
Sitting in the back seat of a prelude quickly disabused me of that notion . . .
Re: (Score:2)
The back seats are definitely not comfortable unless you're under 5' tall. Try having sex back there. It's not easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, at 6'2", no fun at all.
I refused to ever try again.
Then again, a few years ago, I had three adult sized daughters (adult female, not my size!) get into the back of my '97 Eldorado Touring Coupe.
uhm . . . bad idea. It *claims* to seat five, and has the belts, but, upon review, is a 2+3. And the three should be no older than eight . . .
and points for the ADVENT quote!
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, points for the ultra-ultra-low UID!!
Key Word: AFFORDABLE (Score:2)
Early commenters are neglecting the most important word in the summary: AFFORDABLE. Building an EV is easy. Building one that has 4 doors, fits 4 full-sized adults, trunk space, meets all safety requirements, has a 300-mile range, and can use a DC Fast Charger all for less than $30,000 is HARD. GM and Honda couldn't (together) figure out how to do it.
The crux of the issue is the battery pack. They're trying to get the EV battery pack below $100/kWh - for reference, the Chevy Bolt EV (recently killed), had a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After subsidies, you can already get a Tesla 3 for less than $30k. Chevy Bolt isn't being killed after all. Rumor on the street is, Tesla is readying a new car with a $25k price target, pre-subsidies.
So obviously it's hard for Honda, and there will be shakeup in the industry, but it's already getting done. You've also got to remember than the average car price in the US is $50k. Saying it has to be $30k or less to get popular is arbitrary - especially while ignoring that maintenance + "fueling" is chea
Re: (Score:2)
How can 50k be the average price? Do you mean of American made vehicles? Staring at the local Honda dealer, you have both hybrid and non-hybrid choices for under 40k. Not in the mood to check the toyota website but pretty sure I'll find the same thing.
Of course, like most people, I don't actually need an SUV or a truck. Those may very well cost 50k, though once again, sitting here staring at Honda Pilot (suv) for 40-45k. So maybe US auto isn't the way to go. I know I've long since stopped wasted money on Am
Re: (Score:2)
They're roughly correct https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com].
How can this be though? It's all the ridiculously oversized and expensive trucks and SUVs people in our country buy. While cheaper foreign brand cars bring this number down these stupidly large vehicles are super popular. As of 2008 these vehicles made up over 30% of vehicles on the road https://www.aftermarketnews.co... [aftermarketnews.com] and I believe I've heard that number is even higher now although I couldnt find more recent numbers in my quick internet search.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough. It's right up there with stating the average income while ignoring the fact that the top 1% skews that average to absurd proportions. There are plenty of sub 40k vehicles that would meet the vast majority of people's traveling needs.
I'd be one of the few people okay with really expensive gas prices as a way to punish people that bought stupid large vehicles they didn't need. I'll admit, it's really fun watching people suffer for bad decision making. Vast majority of people could buy a hybrid, e
Re: (Score:3)
>"After subsidies, you can already get a Tesla 3 for less than $30k.
If you are eligible for subsidies, and they will mostly go away in a few months, and that is the lowest-end model.
>"You've also got to remember than the average car price in the US is $50k."
Yeah, but at least for that you probably get an actual dashboard and real controls and non-horribly ugly wheels. :)
Seriously, some of Telsa's design decisions are really bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah....in economic hard times, with inflation through the roof, people having trouble just staying housed and eating, and the govt. wants to raise taxes even MORE to subsidize EVs, while the general populace doesn't really see the advantages of them over their current ICE's that
Re: Safety is the difference (Score:2)
That's kind of a sham argument.
Yes, BEVs have batteries that are a huge hazard in a fire, and high voltages under the skin.
Yes, ICE vehicles have enough explosives onboard to throw a couple tons of metal 250 miles down the road, and scalding coolant under the hood.
If BEVs had the length of production history that ICE cars have, they'd have a like number of safety and efficiency innovations.
Re: EVs remind me of the pre-Concorde era (Score:2)
You should see how many Teslas are on the road around me. Starting to see Mach-Es and that hideous Rivian thing a bunch too, as well as other marques that aren't different-looking enough to attract my attention most times. Before Nissan ended the Leaf lease program, there were tons of those, too - largely driven by smart H1B engineers' families that could do the math.
Maybe you think I'm in a liberal's paradise. Nope, this is not Cali, it's Metro Atlanta. Traffic alone is enough to make a big diff in our ICE
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing. I live just outside of one of Canada's poorer cities. I still see a lot of Teslas on the road. The fact is, if you can get the money together to buy one, you're most likely going to have years of "cheap gas" afterward. Their quality control isn't the best, but unless you get an outright lemon, you'll probably save on maintenance, too. One of the people I used to work with bought a used EV, and they've been running around in it with nothing more than routine maintenanc