I have two theories here, and I don't know which I believe more. It's probably a combination of both:
1) Tesla executed a remarkable 0->1 strategy, working from the Roadster (high-end luxury price, low volume) to the S (high-end luxury price, moderate volume) to the Y and 3 (low-end luxury price, high volume), creating an apparently-successful car company that only sold luxury-price vehicles. Detroit interpreted that as "everybody is ready to spend low-end luxury money for electric cars." In fact, there's still a limited number of people who can spend luxury money for cars, and Detroit is winning those back from Tesla. That's not the same thing as "building cars for people who can only spend 25K or less for a car."
2) Detroit really only builds huge cars, leading Americans who don't want huge cars to buy imports or (recently) Teslas. These buyers have greater than random overlap with the set of likely electric car buyers. Detroit tries to build huge electric cars, but those buyers tend not to want huge cars, creating bad market fit.
No idea why you're using a throwaway account, but from what I understand, Hyundai/Kia producing their cars in low quantities, so yes they are selling out, but the production numbers are much lower than Tesla, Polestar, BYD, etc.
>It's somewhat disappointing that the move to EV's hasn't heralded an era of small, cheap city cars.
The reason why this hasn't happened is because small, cheap city cars are the absolute worst-case for electrification, being that:
* Battery energy density isn't there yet; electric cars in this size only have a range of maybe 250km compared to the ~700 you can get from even older generations of turbo 3/4-cylinder engine cars so you won't even get a week's commute before you have to charge
* On-street parking (and apartment parking) is not electrified, and won't be for another couple decades; if you have the means to afford a house you can afford a superior normal car instead anyway
* Proper charging takes about 45 minutes up from the 5 minutes it takes to charge a normal car, and you have to do that every few days rather than every two weeks
* Stiff competition from used normal cars are still cheaper to own, operate, and insure, and the normal cars are superior products
If batteries had 4x the energy density (or a consolation prize of being able to charge fully in 2 minutes) it'd be a different story. But they don't, so any EV smaller than an SUV is a strictly inferior product to a normal car at the same price bracket.
The Hummer EV is a comical vehicle. Over $100k and even if it somehow sustains a 200 kW charge rate from 10-80% (it won’t), it would still take 45 minutes to charge its 212 kWh pack.
By the way, for folks not familiar with EVs, most packs are 60-71 kWh. So you could build three or four EVs with the same capacity as a single Hummer EV.
My incredible Toyota Camry hybrid only has a 1.6kWh battery... and gets 50+mpg. They could build over 100 battery packs and not have to wait for charging by driving a hybrid, folks!
Although I kind of agree, the Hummer is a premium product which they use as a marketing tool. It's the development platform for the Silverado which in the end will compete with the F-150.
Charging rate isn’t everything depending on your use case. How long does my phone take to charge? No idea, it charges while I sleep. Lasts a full day. How long does my EV take to charge? No idea, chargers while I sleep. Does all my journeys I’d need in a day.
My diesel would require an eventual trip to refuel. My EV is fully charged every day. My use case actually saves me time.
Also, people think you need to charge an EV 100% each time on long journeys. That’s the wrong way to do it. It charges faster when closer to empty, so the optimal time to get somewhere fast is charging it just enough to get you to the next charger or your destination.
This seems a lot like the 70s-80s auto market, a period you'd think would be burned into Detroit's institutional memory. Back then, companies like Toyota outcompeted companies like Ford by offering an affordable, reliable, no-frills product. Companies like BYD seem very well positioned to do the same thing.
I think Detroit is heavily focused on a chasing 'whales'. Impulsive people with poor financial instincts that buy trucks and SUV's for social status reasons not because they need wheels to get to work and do shopping. It feels like what one author described as companies micro-optimizing the business till they find themselves going over a cliff. More usually everything seems fine until some change pulls the rug out. Which electrification might well be for them.
Wasn’t it just the Toyota pickup and then the T100 back then (My Dad had an 83 but got rid of it when I was in elementary school)? But I know what you mean. Could the old Tacomas take a 4X8 sheet? I think they were a bit small for that. The Ford lightning seems about the right size, but if they’d make a fully electric Maverick, I’d be tempted.
I think our '82 Toyota pickup was called a Hi-Lux (?) and had a long bed that was over 7 feet but less than 8 feet. Also, I suspect a 4 foot sheet could have been laid above the wheel wells but not flat in the bed between them.
Well, sure, but with 1998 technology so without usable range and slow charging. But yes, this exact car, with LFP batteries, fast charging, and modern EV motors would clean up.
I really believe the people who drive hummers and pickup trucks don’t give a hoot or a holler about electrifying their vehicles. They want an easy to use, sometimes capable (though many are not using it as a work or off road vehicle) comfortable mobile living room.
These EV have spotty rural and exurban charging capabilities so would rely heavily on home charging, and as another poster points out — take forever to charge.
I'm increasingly feeling like GM and Ford are about to have their lunches eaten by the competition. FCA already fell. I just don't understand what they're doing.
It's like they look at premium EV brands, like Tesla, Polestar, Lucid, etc, of the world and say "it must be the electric engine" without actually considering why people are paying a premium for those vehicles.
They literally just stuck electric batteries in vehicles and tried to charge twice the price without delivering the rest of the experience.
The interiors are still largely plastic. The infotainment systems largely used crappy displays with laggy inputs. Vanity components wear extremely quickly. Technology/features are almost always behind comparably priced foreign-designed cars.
They know that we want smaller, cheaper vehicles, they just don’t care. They can throttle down supply and make it so you have no choice but to buy something big and expensive. They advertise small vehicles on the website but they make sure that your local dealership doesn’t have any on the lot- classic bait and switch. They know exactly what they’re doing.
It's more that emissions regulations permit larger vehicles to emit more. Rather than improve efficiency of vehicles, it's cheaper to produce bigger trucks and cars.
Feels like Detroit was happy to sell a few EVs for carbon credits or to soak up the tax incentives and not a unit more. They are well positioned to shoot for the ‘second car’ market. They didn’t have to go big, or work on trucks that can’t tow.
For example the Bolt is solid and GM should have done everything in their power to put one in every EV buyer’s driveway.
The bolt could have had a cabriolet version, a little higher range version, offroad, cut the price harder, etc. It is a shame to lose those years of market building. Imagine throwing that away while Toyota was gifting you that time.
The Mach-E was a decent placement, and you’d think the Cadillac could have taken a lot of Y sales away.
The best selling specific vehicles in the USA are first pickups (F150, RAM,Silverado), then SUVs (RAV4, Model Y, CR-V).
Ford is doing the right thing with the F150 lightning but they really missed with the Mustang Mach-E. All they had to do was make an electric Escape or Edge with decent range and it would compete with the Model Y.
My family is in the market for an AWD electric SUV with reasonable cargo space and actual buttons for major controls. These don’t really exist and if a manufacturer cared enough to push this they’d make a killing. The Mach-E, Ariya, Model Y, EV6, Ioniq5 don’t have much cargo space. The Honda Prologue/Chevy Blazer EV are closer to the RAV4 CR-V so we’ll see. The VW ID4 is also bigger but the touchscreen has gotten terrible reviews.
Model Ys are catching up to the RAV4 because they were the only option with decent range and charging infra while looking decent and being a reasonable size. Good for Tesla but Detroit still hasn’t learned the right lessons.
Can’t wait for more competition in this space where regular vehicles are available in electric versions. The old guard could easily build a nicer interior than a Tesla and lean into tactile controls and their dealer network. Instead they co-opt the tablet and focus on the wrong things like autopilot, sportbacks, and “futuristic” designs.
Interestingly, the Mach-E is just about the only electric vehicle that the "Big 3" have largely done right. It's visually appealing, has loads of power, and is a bit more versatile than a regular Mustang.
It’s a decent vehicle but the look is subjective. I’m not a fan of the mustang SUV look. Unfortunately the trunk is just too small for my needs and we need something with the cargo space of a midsize SUV (but not as big as the EV9/R1S). Electric vehicles that come close: Q8 E-tron/ID4, Prologue/Blazer, Lyriq. And those still don’t match the cheaper RAV4, CR-V, Sportage, Tucson, Rogue in terms of cargo space while being similarly sized vehicles.
The first EV midsize SUV comparable to the RAV4 in size and functionality with decent range will sell like hot cakes. Assuming the manufacturer puts a little effort behind it and doesn’t do what GM did with the Bolt/Volt.
And no Honda, I don’t want a hydrogen powered CR-V.
41 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 98.9 ms ] thread1) Tesla executed a remarkable 0->1 strategy, working from the Roadster (high-end luxury price, low volume) to the S (high-end luxury price, moderate volume) to the Y and 3 (low-end luxury price, high volume), creating an apparently-successful car company that only sold luxury-price vehicles. Detroit interpreted that as "everybody is ready to spend low-end luxury money for electric cars." In fact, there's still a limited number of people who can spend luxury money for cars, and Detroit is winning those back from Tesla. That's not the same thing as "building cars for people who can only spend 25K or less for a car."
2) Detroit really only builds huge cars, leading Americans who don't want huge cars to buy imports or (recently) Teslas. These buyers have greater than random overlap with the set of likely electric car buyers. Detroit tries to build huge electric cars, but those buyers tend not to want huge cars, creating bad market fit.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/07/top-electric-vehicle-br...
I’m fine with those companies selling well because they’re doing the same thing as Hyundai/Kia are doing.
That said, in some places it seems to be the case: https://hongkongfp.com/2024/02/24/how-cheap-mini-electric-ve...
I guess they are just too incompatible with an existing fleet of trucks and SUV's.
I've got my ice car for road trips, but something small and zippy would be great for just short, irregular trips
The reason why this hasn't happened is because small, cheap city cars are the absolute worst-case for electrification, being that:
* Battery energy density isn't there yet; electric cars in this size only have a range of maybe 250km compared to the ~700 you can get from even older generations of turbo 3/4-cylinder engine cars so you won't even get a week's commute before you have to charge
* On-street parking (and apartment parking) is not electrified, and won't be for another couple decades; if you have the means to afford a house you can afford a superior normal car instead anyway
* Proper charging takes about 45 minutes up from the 5 minutes it takes to charge a normal car, and you have to do that every few days rather than every two weeks
* Stiff competition from used normal cars are still cheaper to own, operate, and insure, and the normal cars are superior products
If batteries had 4x the energy density (or a consolation prize of being able to charge fully in 2 minutes) it'd be a different story. But they don't, so any EV smaller than an SUV is a strictly inferior product to a normal car at the same price bracket.
But you have to visit a fuel station and refill? How long does that take? My EV charges when I sleep, no waiting and a quarter of the cost per mile.
Edit: when someone claims that owning an EV requires waiting and you challenge that apparently you get downvoted.
Then, they slapped a $100k price tag on it without actually considering why people buy a $100k electric truck/SUV.
My diesel would require an eventual trip to refuel. My EV is fully charged every day. My use case actually saves me time.
Also, people think you need to charge an EV 100% each time on long journeys. That’s the wrong way to do it. It charges faster when closer to empty, so the optimal time to get somewhere fast is charging it just enough to get you to the next charger or your destination.
These EV have spotty rural and exurban charging capabilities so would rely heavily on home charging, and as another poster points out — take forever to charge.
It's like they look at premium EV brands, like Tesla, Polestar, Lucid, etc, of the world and say "it must be the electric engine" without actually considering why people are paying a premium for those vehicles.
They literally just stuck electric batteries in vehicles and tried to charge twice the price without delivering the rest of the experience.
The interiors are still largely plastic. The infotainment systems largely used crappy displays with laggy inputs. Vanity components wear extremely quickly. Technology/features are almost always behind comparably priced foreign-designed cars.
For example the Bolt is solid and GM should have done everything in their power to put one in every EV buyer’s driveway.
The bolt could have had a cabriolet version, a little higher range version, offroad, cut the price harder, etc. It is a shame to lose those years of market building. Imagine throwing that away while Toyota was gifting you that time.
The Mach-E was a decent placement, and you’d think the Cadillac could have taken a lot of Y sales away.
Rivian was smart to go toward the R3.
Ford is doing the right thing with the F150 lightning but they really missed with the Mustang Mach-E. All they had to do was make an electric Escape or Edge with decent range and it would compete with the Model Y.
My family is in the market for an AWD electric SUV with reasonable cargo space and actual buttons for major controls. These don’t really exist and if a manufacturer cared enough to push this they’d make a killing. The Mach-E, Ariya, Model Y, EV6, Ioniq5 don’t have much cargo space. The Honda Prologue/Chevy Blazer EV are closer to the RAV4 CR-V so we’ll see. The VW ID4 is also bigger but the touchscreen has gotten terrible reviews.
Model Ys are catching up to the RAV4 because they were the only option with decent range and charging infra while looking decent and being a reasonable size. Good for Tesla but Detroit still hasn’t learned the right lessons.
Can’t wait for more competition in this space where regular vehicles are available in electric versions. The old guard could easily build a nicer interior than a Tesla and lean into tactile controls and their dealer network. Instead they co-opt the tablet and focus on the wrong things like autopilot, sportbacks, and “futuristic” designs.
Have you test-driven a new Rav4, yet? It has all these features.
Ultimately, I purchased a FWD Camry hybrid (50+mpg), but the Rav4 AWD would have been my pick if I had family or 4x4 requirements.
I see a reasonable amount of them around my town.
The first EV midsize SUV comparable to the RAV4 in size and functionality with decent range will sell like hot cakes. Assuming the manufacturer puts a little effort behind it and doesn’t do what GM did with the Bolt/Volt.
And no Honda, I don’t want a hydrogen powered CR-V.