Not sure how this is an example of over regulation.
Regulations goal is to reduce CO2 output. If a private company want to achieve that by funding a foreign electric car company to create a reduced total footprint, that’s their choice.
Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2. That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.
One of the other things those CO2 regulations did is push companies towards producing and selling diesel cars that emitted less CO2 but more other pollutants like NO2 and particulates that caused direct and immediate harm. Which lead to dieselgate and then this: "Compliance has gotten harder for automakers as consumers have shifted toward gasoline cars, which emit comparatively more CO2, following Volkswagen AG’s diesel-emissions scandal that first erupted in 2015."
So I guess this isn't so much a footgun moment as a whole series of them.
It all depends on if, as a European, you see the goal of reducing CO2 justified by the fact that you may be kneecapping local industries in favor of a foreign one.
I wouldn't call it a foot gun moment but it does feel somewhat like a faustian bargain.
For me preventing climate change is pretty non-negotiable. I’m rather a fan of having a liveable planet, and as some that lives in London, I’m acutely aware of what sea level rise will do to my home.
In this specific case a small foreign company (and Tesla is tiny compared to the likes of VW) gets a leg up. I don’t think it have much impact of EU automotive industry in the long run.
Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them. Like improving charging infrastructure.
Putting a gun to the head of one if not the largest manufacturing industry on the continent is pretty stupid way of doing so.
> That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.
Yeah great, us europeans will all be thrilled by the increased foreign competition and dead local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.
> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.
Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.
> Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.
A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.
> Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.
So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.
> Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.
You’re going to have to explain why this is shooting ourselves in the foot. I’m still not seeing it.
> A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what your trying to say. Which regulations are so much looser and can you explain what advantages they provide to Tesla vs an EU company.
> So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.
EU companies own factories in the US (VW is a notable example), and US companies own factories in the EU. Nothing wrong with that.
> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.
No, the goal is not to reduce CO2, it is to eliminate it entirely, and in order to do that one of the things you have to do is convert all auto transportation over to electric cars. But I bet you already knew that.
> Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them.
Maybe instead of picking a technology you should manage to the target you actually want. The target could in theory be reached with Hydrogen cars and perhaps that would be better — shame if they’d regulated for electric.
(Actually I think hydrogen is an absurd transport fuel, and California’s hydrogen power funding a waste. But the principle holds)
I suspect the EU law is the same as the California one in that it doesn't require EVs... hydrogen is fine for CARB, you can even get a partial credit for natural gas.
California gave hydrogen funding in order to give them a fair shot. No fair declaring after the fact that it was a waste.
FWIW the physics of trying to store and transport H seemed plainly absurd on the face of it, to me at the time and I haven’t seen any breakthroughs since then.
> local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.
Tesla is also subject to EU regulation. The emission regulations concern cars sold in Europe, no matter whether the company selling them is headquartered in Europe or not. It's just that in this case they're more compliant with the regulation than Fiat.
> Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2.
Does it though?
Instead of Fiat reducing their product's CO2 emissions, isn't it actually the case that they've just done some fancy accounting and now say their emissions are lower because the paperwork now says Tesla is part of their fleet?
Tesla were going to make those cars anyway, so really Tesla gain the free money from Fiat, and Fiat keeps making polluting cars, and we all get to suffer the consequences of no actual reduction of CO2 because ultimately nothing has changed apart from some paperwork that follows the letter of the law rather than the spirit?
It’s an economic disincentive for Fiat to continue producing them. Sure Fiat could continue to sell those cars, but being on the hook for shoveling Tesla $2bn every few years isn’t a winning long term strategy. Hurts Fiat, helps a company that’s got much better CO2 performance. CO2 will be reduced because it will now be in Fiats financial interest to produce EVs. It certainly won’t happen overnight but the incentives are clear for Fiat.
No, the standards keep going up, so Fiat still has to change. It already knows this, and its problem is it is not yet really to start manufacturing a lot of ev's. This gives them another year or two to get ready.
the infrastructure in Europe for electric car was disfunctional until a couple years ago, with few recharge point mostly around large cities having incomplete coverage of ports.
this has been changing fast last year, so everyone around Europe is getting their designs off the shelves and into the dealership
have been saying this for years, they aren't competing with Tesla, they aren't going to work with the same low volumes because their margins are completely different, and they are not falling behind, they are acting on traditional business cases, not being startups.
Would it? Seems like a lot of Wrangler owners are either people who strap extra gas canisters to their vehicle for extra range in adventure scenarios OR people that at least want to think they have the option to do so (not meant as an insult).
Most wranglers don't see proper off-roading, none of the crossovers. But even though, you have the whole front trunk where you can add a range extender (similar to BMW i3). You can strap extra canisters - range is not an issue.
What you've got is a superior off-roading machine. With 4 electric motors you can apply torque with extreme precision. Increasing ground clearance is not an issue since you don't need a drive shaft and diffs.
Sure, you could definitely argue that the EU’s strict environmental regulations make European auto manufacturers less competitive. On the other hand, these regulations are designed to promote social good, not the wellbeing of the manufacturers, and I think the laws are pretty much working in that regard by allowing Tesla to expand more quickly and forcing other automakers to take EV production more seriously. To be fair though, EU lawmakers probably didn’t foresee how long it would take for European automakers to jump on the EV bandwagon, and how much these regulations would help foreign competitors gain a foothold on their continent.
> On the other hand, these regulations are designed to promote social good, not the wellbeing of the manufacturers, and I think the laws are pretty much working in that regard by allowing Tesla to expand more quickly and forcing other automakers to take EV production more seriously.
Great. I look forward to my unemployed well being when the largest EU industry collapses.
Well if you're anywhere in western EU, thanks to the social system, it shouldn't be destructive to you. Not that I support it, but I frequently hear support of it from the automotive industry people (especially VW and Skoda) - you should use it then.
The seeds for unemployment are germinating as we speak. Expect the apparent fact that e-cars have a huge advantage in manufacturing simplicity wihc grants huge automation based speed of production. Some will specialize in making 'skates' - this is a 4 wheeled battery with motor, wheel, brakes and computer/dashboard package that is called a skate. On which a unibody is bolted.m This unibody is similarly highly favorable to automation. Some say only 20% of the work force will be needed - as we see with Tesla's admittedly low volume the number per car is a lot lower and as automation improves, will decline,..
Will these workers go quietly? Now, never in a minute, esp the French, they will want fat wages for life, etc etc and agitate for that, even as they are laid off. The death of Italian and german auto sectors staffing looms over the next 20 years.
It depends on the timelines on which you are measuring success. If these regulations get all-electric car ubiquity to arrive 5 years earlier, but in the process causes many domestic firms to shutdown, consolidate, etc. we may be sacrificing the competitiveness and innovation in this industry 25-50 years down the road.
It may be that this is a valid trade off to make, but it warrants thought at the very least.
A trade off, generating lots of low hanging election fruits for as long as disgruntled voters are reminded they voted for something else, than said trade off.
The purpose of the emission regulations is to reduce emissions. The regulation does not force manufacturers to pool with foreign companies, nor would such pooling be detrimental to the regulation's goals. By allowing pooling, electric manufacturers are given an advantage, which in turn leads to reduced emissions. Perhaps the problem is that you are misinterpreting the purpose of the law?
Why is this a “foot gun?” If it improves competition and pricing for the consumer isn’t it a good thing?
Plus it keeps fiat viable while they work on improving their fleet emissions. Nor fiat squanders the opportunity in which it’s a good idea for them to go bust.
Is there more to this argument than thinly veiled nationalism/xenophobia to this argument?
If someone builds industry in Europe, in European jurisdiction, which achieves something with less CO2 output, even if he is from Papa Guinea or whatever, what is lost here, beside the ego of some backwards thinking people?
I mean, there’s only so long Fiat can keep handing billions of dollars to Tesla, so either they’ll eventually go bankrupt or they’ll start producing good electric cars!
It is horrible!!! Most of them lose as much as half of their already small range within a few years. I can't believe there hasn't been some sort of lawsuit against Fiat. It's so bad I wonder if it was intentional.
That explains why I can pick them up on Craigslist for around $7000 used. But I mean, even with only a 35 mile range, I could still get to work and back every day. For $7k, that seems like a damn good way to get into EVs. Aside from the range issues, are there any reliability concerns?
Previous revisions of the vehicle had measly 100KM (65 mile) ranges, and were only available to US consumers in California. Fiat also used older cell tech that wasn't as reliable or dense as newer prismatic cells. I do not know if the cells were temperature regulated, but that would explain the range and reliability issues found with the OEM cell packs.
The car itself is quite interesting in my opinion, but the untenable range and lack of accessibility doomed it to unpopularity. If Fiat made a reasonably priced version with at least 200KM of range, and high quality cells, I would make it my next car.
Fiat do have a reputation for making unreliable cars. I have no idea whether it’s deserved or not, but the joke that Fiat stands for “Fix it again, Tony” has been around for a very long time. I first heard that joke in a 1997 episode of King of the Hill, so people have been making it since at least then. Fiat made ads referencing the joke in 2014, so I presume it’s had some staying power too.
AFAIK it got bad rep in Europe because they made cars for their domestic marked, got exported to northern Europe and had problems with some coatings and electronics.
But honestly my experience is good. I mean, it's reasonably cheap, aesthetics tend to be ok at least, engines are decent, and overall it feels like they do a decent job for the price. Not to mention that they have some famous commercial vehicles that Fiat Ducato.
I drove a rental 500c around Europe once, and it was rather good. But it was brand new (had like 30 miles on the clock when I picked it up), and I’ve never owned one. So no idea if it’s reliability reputation is to be believed.
A couple of my neighbors had 500Es and a few of my friends had gasoline powered 500s. The electric owners seemed to like the car well enough but declined to buy it after the lease (FIAT wanted an obscene amount of money compared to the lease price). Price was the only reason the 500E was appealing – my one neighbor paid about $120/mo after insurance.
The gasoline owners were less enthusiastic. One of the big problems in San Francisco is that it was the Maserati/Generic Italian dealer that got the FIAT franchise (granted the other Bay Area FIAT dealers are just as bad). They're expensive, incompetent, and not particularly customer oriented. One friend had transmission/clutch issues and the dealer wanted $3000 to R&R the clutch on a car that was barely two years old. The other Bay Area dealers wanted about the same amount of money. I asked someone overseas to look up the book time and parts cost (about 3 hrs and $300 respectively). That works out to well north of $700/hr in labor charges.
The scummy service advisor showed us what he claimed was the clutch they pulled and it looked almost brand new. Turns out FIAT put a hydraulic clutch control system in the American market ones and their Mexican factory put the wrong throw out bearings in early builds. The dealer never did give us the throw out bearing (I wonder why...).
If I wanted an econobox with a warranty that was fun to drive I'd buy a Honda. They've had that market locked down for ages. If I wanted something more exotic I'd look at a VW. If I wanted something difficult to find parts for I'd get a Peugeot or Citroen. If I wanted something that rides like crap and isn't utilitarian I'd get a Miata.
The story only gets worse with Alfa. FIAT couldn't even keep the press cars running and they kept blaming software issues for mechanical failure[0].
FIAT gets a bad rap in the United States because they don't have the cachet to get away with their mediocre quality and non-existent support network.
fiat has marvelous compacts. the fire engine derivatives just run forever, the diesel made school twenty years ago and have an edge still today.
they have no clue on full size cars, and still pay for the socialized handling the Italian car sector was subject into the nineties, but below management they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal.
and the Alfa tonale was a thing from unsuspecting times.
fiat has marvelous compacts. the fire engine derivatives just run forever, the diesel made school twenty years ago and have an edge still today.
Whatever FIAT is importing for the US market hasn't been particularly reliable.
they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal.
Speaking of, the one thing that surprised me with the 500 was how primitive its bluetooth support was. I think it will only sync contacts with a phone (playing audio is just not in the cards).
My 500 has been great, but I always hear horror stories about the 500 in the US. I believe they have assembly in Mexico, which I assume is for the North American market. They are also built in Poland(?) if memory serves, so it may be that I have a European vehicle here.
And yes, bluetooth is weirdly primitive. I prefer aux anyway, so no big deal.
I think a Panda excels in Southern European medieval plan cities with its nimbleness, short dimensions, good visibility and just overall practicality. Also looks good. It isn't a sports car or a luxury car and the design accepts that.
In Northern Europe, I would recommend something much more robust than a Fiat.
As an American, I feel like prior to the 500, virtually the only Fiat (or Citroen, for that matter) vehicles we ever hear about are the absolute worst of the worst.
That sort of confirmation bias has left me wondering on numerous occasions why Fiat is even in business, let alone why it's been able to acquire so many other badges. I'm just aware enough of this that I don't automatically accept statements like "Fiat have made mostly terrible cars". Is that really true? How could they be the third largest manufacturer if that's all they do?
Fiat were famous in the 70s and 80s for producing cars that would rust away before the tires needed changing. Obviously an exaggeration but they used cheap Soviet steel (sometimes called washing machine grade in the motoring press).
The 500 is fun (to look at, not to drive) but the Tipo, Punto, Panda etc are pretty dreadful.
As to how they got to their position, I’d say that being effectively a flag carrier manufacturer helped sustain them and Chrysler were pretty desperate for a partner after the Daimler split.
“Fiat Chrysler is going to launch a new version of its Fiat 500 battery-powered vehicle in Europe this year, along with plug-in hybrid versions of its Jeep Compass, Renegade and Wrangler models. That, combined with the Tesla credits, should make the company compliant with Europe’s emissions rules, CEO Mike Manley told analysts in July.
While Fiat Chrysler would otherwise struggle to meet new carbon-dioxide emissions standards in Europe, the so-called open-pool option available in the European Union allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet targets.“ Fiat is paying Tesla for emission credits to meet EU regulations.
Tesla is a compliance car manufacturer for-hire. If they were serious about the planet (and their own mission statement) they would cease this dirty practice.
My interest is greenhouse gas emissions, not in wealth transfer shell games.
If Tesla did not sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder, produced Teslas would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But they do, so every Tesla sold results in a mirror SUV created. Buying a Tesla does not help with climate change. I might as well buy the SUV and let some sucker on the other side of the trade deal with the premium prices, charging hassle, and range anxiety that comes with EV ownership.
What good is a marginally cheaper Tesla if, at the end of day, it doesn’t reduce pollution one bit?
Now, on the other hand, Tesla wasn’t a compliance car manufacturer for-hire, EU regulations would still make polluting cars more expensive than Teslas, and manufacturers would have an even greater incentive to shift to less polluting cars more quickly, resulting in less overall pollution in the air.
If Tesla did not sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder, it wouldn't be able to fund itself. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how carbon permit equivalent systems work. Each year, the number of permits decreases and the price of polluting goes up. If you immediately drop the number of permits to zero, the production infrastructure won't be in place.
It's not a wealth transfer game intended to enrich Musk. Tesla is using the money to expand production of ev's faster than it could. As far as ICE SUV's goes, if Fiat wasn't manufacturing them, someone else would.
And the reason the emission standard is in place is the EU has decided to force the manufacturers to switch over to producing ev's over the next decade. That is the big story you ought to be paying attention to.
It's funny that you believe fiat would if tesla wasn't here just lobby to lower the regulation like every other time. At least in this case its funding electric car companies instead of giving money to a government.
One thing that pretty much everyone underestimated here is exactly how good Musk is at finding other people to pay for stuff.
The loans from the Chinese govt...insane...he found literally the only people on earth (perhaps aside from German bankers, although they have lost too much money to carry on for now) that will light fire to huge stacks of cash with no hesitation.
Fiat are shrewd but he clearly had them up against a wall here. Genius.
I would still much rather take my money down to the track rather than invest with Musk but it is genuinely difficult to think of another CEO with as much capital markets hustle.
Musk seems to be really really good at working his customers, suppliers, governments, financiers, media, and public. In addition to having rather spectacular engineering sense. It's like a perfect storm for being a business magnet.
Yep, I would definitely disagree with you there. Tesla is all sizzle and no steak. He would make a great financial adviser or sales guy at a hedge fund...I am sure that anything else he touches would turn to shit with great rapidity.
I assure you Musk has great engineering talent. Sometimes it looks like he doesn't because he demands progress faster than is reasonable and chaos and failure is the result.
No, that's all wrong. He has build up a company that produces the best ev's in the world, and is forcing all the other companies to follow his lead, and in the process helping save the climate. Which you apparently don't care about at all.
91 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] threadRegulations goal is to reduce CO2 output. If a private company want to achieve that by funding a foreign electric car company to create a reduced total footprint, that’s their choice.
Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2. That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.
So I guess this isn't so much a footgun moment as a whole series of them.
I wouldn't call it a foot gun moment but it does feel somewhat like a faustian bargain.
In this specific case a small foreign company (and Tesla is tiny compared to the likes of VW) gets a leg up. I don’t think it have much impact of EU automotive industry in the long run.
Check the market cap.
Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them. Like improving charging infrastructure.
Putting a gun to the head of one if not the largest manufacturing industry on the continent is pretty stupid way of doing so.
> That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.
Yeah great, us europeans will all be thrilled by the increased foreign competition and dead local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.
Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.
Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.
Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.
> Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.
A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.
> Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.
So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.
You’re going to have to explain why this is shooting ourselves in the foot. I’m still not seeing it.
> A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what your trying to say. Which regulations are so much looser and can you explain what advantages they provide to Tesla vs an EU company.
> So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.
EU companies own factories in the US (VW is a notable example), and US companies own factories in the EU. Nothing wrong with that.
No, the goal is not to reduce CO2, it is to eliminate it entirely, and in order to do that one of the things you have to do is convert all auto transportation over to electric cars. But I bet you already knew that.
Maybe instead of picking a technology you should manage to the target you actually want. The target could in theory be reached with Hydrogen cars and perhaps that would be better — shame if they’d regulated for electric.
(Actually I think hydrogen is an absurd transport fuel, and California’s hydrogen power funding a waste. But the principle holds)
California gave hydrogen funding in order to give them a fair shot. No fair declaring after the fact that it was a waste.
Tesla is also subject to EU regulation. The emission regulations concern cars sold in Europe, no matter whether the company selling them is headquartered in Europe or not. It's just that in this case they're more compliant with the regulation than Fiat.
Does it though?
Instead of Fiat reducing their product's CO2 emissions, isn't it actually the case that they've just done some fancy accounting and now say their emissions are lower because the paperwork now says Tesla is part of their fleet?
Tesla were going to make those cars anyway, so really Tesla gain the free money from Fiat, and Fiat keeps making polluting cars, and we all get to suffer the consequences of no actual reduction of CO2 because ultimately nothing has changed apart from some paperwork that follows the letter of the law rather than the spirit?
Doesn't seem that great to me.
Electric Wrangler/Gladiator with a smaller cross-over version would sell like hot cakes.
this has been changing fast last year, so everyone around Europe is getting their designs off the shelves and into the dealership
have been saying this for years, they aren't competing with Tesla, they aren't going to work with the same low volumes because their margins are completely different, and they are not falling behind, they are acting on traditional business cases, not being startups.
What you've got is a superior off-roading machine. With 4 electric motors you can apply torque with extreme precision. Increasing ground clearance is not an issue since you don't need a drive shaft and diffs.
Great. I look forward to my unemployed well being when the largest EU industry collapses.
For the times they are a-changin'
It may be that this is a valid trade off to make, but it warrants thought at the very least.
Plus it keeps fiat viable while they work on improving their fleet emissions. Nor fiat squanders the opportunity in which it’s a good idea for them to go bust.
If someone builds industry in Europe, in European jurisdiction, which achieves something with less CO2 output, even if he is from Papa Guinea or whatever, what is lost here, beside the ego of some backwards thinking people?
My concern, though, is that Fiat get to continue making mostly terrible ICE cars thanks to what feels like green washing.
The car itself is quite interesting in my opinion, but the untenable range and lack of accessibility doomed it to unpopularity. If Fiat made a reasonably priced version with at least 200KM of range, and high quality cells, I would make it my next car.
But honestly my experience is good. I mean, it's reasonably cheap, aesthetics tend to be ok at least, engines are decent, and overall it feels like they do a decent job for the price. Not to mention that they have some famous commercial vehicles that Fiat Ducato.
The gasoline owners were less enthusiastic. One of the big problems in San Francisco is that it was the Maserati/Generic Italian dealer that got the FIAT franchise (granted the other Bay Area FIAT dealers are just as bad). They're expensive, incompetent, and not particularly customer oriented. One friend had transmission/clutch issues and the dealer wanted $3000 to R&R the clutch on a car that was barely two years old. The other Bay Area dealers wanted about the same amount of money. I asked someone overseas to look up the book time and parts cost (about 3 hrs and $300 respectively). That works out to well north of $700/hr in labor charges.
The scummy service advisor showed us what he claimed was the clutch they pulled and it looked almost brand new. Turns out FIAT put a hydraulic clutch control system in the American market ones and their Mexican factory put the wrong throw out bearings in early builds. The dealer never did give us the throw out bearing (I wonder why...).
If I wanted an econobox with a warranty that was fun to drive I'd buy a Honda. They've had that market locked down for ages. If I wanted something more exotic I'd look at a VW. If I wanted something difficult to find parts for I'd get a Peugeot or Citroen. If I wanted something that rides like crap and isn't utilitarian I'd get a Miata.
The story only gets worse with Alfa. FIAT couldn't even keep the press cars running and they kept blaming software issues for mechanical failure[0].
FIAT gets a bad rap in the United States because they don't have the cachet to get away with their mediocre quality and non-existent support network.
0: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a23145269/alfa-romeo-gi...
they have no clue on full size cars, and still pay for the socialized handling the Italian car sector was subject into the nineties, but below management they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal.
and the Alfa tonale was a thing from unsuspecting times.
But: Fiat made great progress under their late CEO. The current 500 is a modern icon IMO.
Whatever FIAT is importing for the US market hasn't been particularly reliable.
they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal.
Speaking of, the one thing that surprised me with the 500 was how primitive its bluetooth support was. I think it will only sync contacts with a phone (playing audio is just not in the cards).
And yes, bluetooth is weirdly primitive. I prefer aux anyway, so no big deal.
I think a Panda excels in Southern European medieval plan cities with its nimbleness, short dimensions, good visibility and just overall practicality. Also looks good. It isn't a sports car or a luxury car and the design accepts that.
In Northern Europe, I would recommend something much more robust than a Fiat.
That sort of confirmation bias has left me wondering on numerous occasions why Fiat is even in business, let alone why it's been able to acquire so many other badges. I'm just aware enough of this that I don't automatically accept statements like "Fiat have made mostly terrible cars". Is that really true? How could they be the third largest manufacturer if that's all they do?
The 500 is fun (to look at, not to drive) but the Tipo, Punto, Panda etc are pretty dreadful.
As to how they got to their position, I’d say that being effectively a flag carrier manufacturer helped sustain them and Chrysler were pretty desperate for a partner after the Daimler split.
Don't worry, this is only temporary. European C02 standards are going to go up every year, so Fiat have to move to electrics as fast as they can.
While Fiat Chrysler would otherwise struggle to meet new carbon-dioxide emissions standards in Europe, the so-called open-pool option available in the European Union allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet targets.“ Fiat is paying Tesla for emission credits to meet EU regulations.
If Tesla did not sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder, produced Teslas would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But they do, so every Tesla sold results in a mirror SUV created. Buying a Tesla does not help with climate change. I might as well buy the SUV and let some sucker on the other side of the trade deal with the premium prices, charging hassle, and range anxiety that comes with EV ownership.
What good is a marginally cheaper Tesla if, at the end of day, it doesn’t reduce pollution one bit?
And the reason the emission standard is in place is the EU has decided to force the manufacturers to switch over to producing ev's over the next decade. That is the big story you ought to be paying attention to.
The loans from the Chinese govt...insane...he found literally the only people on earth (perhaps aside from German bankers, although they have lost too much money to carry on for now) that will light fire to huge stacks of cash with no hesitation.
Fiat are shrewd but he clearly had them up against a wall here. Genius.
I would still much rather take my money down to the track rather than invest with Musk but it is genuinely difficult to think of another CEO with as much capital markets hustle.
The "elusive" people behind him are doing all the work, he is a puppet
Their goal is to penetrate and disturb EU/Asia market, USA doesn't want to have competitors, or global giants other than american ones
People are blind, and retarded, they suck his penis publicly