Ugh, what a shit article. It mentions exactly one model, a Dacia, that has been already on the market for some time, and a Renault prototype coming maybe in 2026. There is nothing like what the headline suggests as far as I can tell.
Thanks, I was afraid I had missed a wave of new releases of German car makers finally getting of their arses - not that I’d mind, but no, they didn’t.
SUVs, anyone?
No?
We also have crossover SUVs.
Maybe a SUV mixed with a coupé?
Still no?
How about a Combi mixed with a SUV?
Our cheapest option?
That’ll be 30.000€.
Electric? No. That one isn’t electric.
For that you’ll have to upgrade to our eSUV.
Why… why are you leaving?
Me in a dealership: shitty sedans and suvs. Oh, what’s that? I left in a minivan.
Very interesting. I wonder how those manufacturers are planning to make these cars cheaper? Do they just have a smaller battery, or do they go with LFP instead of NMC or NCA?
Or do they also get subsidiaries from their governments?
Ring-a-ding-ding-ding!
probably buying batteries from china, since there is no one even close to competitve with them, like BYD’s Blade battery. And then competing on everything else, for example by cutting down on all the superfluous crap they put in to massively overinflate car prices over the last 20 years.
Renault has been doing the Zoe at roughly this price point for about a decade already, although there was a monthly lease on the battery so there’s an ongoing cost. I see quite a few of them going around here, though they’re not a huge presence. They’re simple but pleasant on the inside
LOL, “batteries not included” has a whole new meaning now.
Not really. It is clearly a thing of the past, when batteries were expensive and not as reliable as today. Don’t forget that the zoe was released 10 years ago.
Probably still made in China.
France is building it’s own EV manufacturing infrastructure so no.
Good. Much better than that auto exec who was suggesting tariffs on imported EV vehicles would be needed to “save” Europe. I want to say it was BMW but that might just be my own bias against them speaking.
Ooh, Musky ain’t gonna like this.
Hasn’t musk been losing traction in this game for a while now anyway? My understanding is that Tesla’s whole initial selling point was that they disrupted the market and made electric vehicles something that people would want to buy, whilst the other automakers were ‘technically’ making EVs but making them look awful to keep the fuel industry alive.
Other automakers have woken up to the demand now and are making nice EVs. Unless Tesla can do something innovative that actually works consistently they’re probably going to phase out.
made electric vehicles something that people would want to buy
*people who were considering whether they wanted a Porsche or a Landrover. Selling Teslas to people who had $80,000 dollars to blow in 2015 is orthogonal wide adoption of EVs.
the other automakers were ‘technically’ making EVs
It’s worse than that. California passed a law requiring the big automakers offer a non-fossil fuel vehicle. Most companies stuck electric or hydrogen motors in existing cars to make cheap garbage that technically met the requirements. GM spent half a billion developing the EV1. They released for lease-only in 1996 with a 160 mile range. They estimated a starting MSRP of $34,000 by 1999.
The customers loved them. Then California got rid of the law. And GM canceled the program. Thousands of customers sent checks trying to buy the cars. GM proceeded to revoke all leases, crush the cars, and sell the battery technology to Chevron.
It doesn’t appear that Musk is interested in cheap electric cars. My guess is that the M3 is the smallest Tesla for a while.
I wonder what happens if you own a Chinese car but the car decides your social credit score isn’t high enough to drive…
Removed by mod
EV Bullshit Bingo from 2018 called, it wants it’s argument back
No matter the source and even if you get electricity produced using coal, the car is better for the environment after less than 50k miles
Even if you charge an EV on electricity generated from coal, it’s still cleaner over its lifetime.
(Shock! Running one large generator constantly at the peak of its efficiency curve is more efficient than tens of thousands of tiny engines from a cold start, with varying levels of proper maintenance, all over their rev-range).
About 5 years ago, two (peer reviewed) UK studies found that EVs typically overtake ICE vehicles after only around 2 years of ownership. The UK grid is cleaner now so it will now be an even shorter timeframe.
I have an MX-5 that I drive on weekends, and care for dearly, it burns petrol, and I plan to keep this car literally for the rest of my life, because I love driving it. But fuck me am I fucking tired of the FUD surrounding EVs.
Stop spreading disinformation and do some bloody research. Do better.
Ahat about lithium production? Do you know much heavily contaminated water that leaves behind?
I don’t have an ICE car, by the way. Nor will I buy one.
The basic fact is that mining sucks and cars (or for that matter, most other technical products) are not environmentally friendly. However, the scale of these issues varies for different products. And to the point of scale:
I’ll admit, the specifics and the source on this infographic are “trust me bro” because I forgot where I screenshotted it from. The takeaway is this, though: The necessary level of materials mining for electrified products and green energy does not compare to the level of fossil fuels drilling needed otherwise. In addition, battery materials can be recycled pretty well, so you only need to mine them once. Fossil fuels can not be recycled.
In any case, it’s a good idea to question where all of the things you own and consume come from. It’s a good thing to fight for supply-chain laws. However, detractors of green energies systematically exaggerate environmental impacts precisely because the technologies they propose are massively dirtier.
As to lithium in particular: Lithium from South America indeed has large environmental ramifications. However, most lithium is in fact mined in Australia in a completely different process.
I’m sceptical of electric cars because I believe trains are the better solution. No batteries at all, and no microlastic pollution (tyres). Also much less steel and other materials needed per person-kilometre, and the train cars last for tens of millions of kilometres, not just 200k or so.
Mass transit is better than cars. That’s transparent. The point you were making previously though, was that electric cars may be worse than fossil-fuel burning cars. Why are you switching tack again?
I was asking, not making a point. I saw a documentary about the catastrophic environmental impact of lithium mining in Argentina. When I expressed a view critical of a conversion from ICE to EV I had a conversion to trains instead in mind
Are you conceding that you were indeed making shit up in your previous comment?
Ahat about lithium production?
Nowhere near as bad as what goes on with fossil fuel production.
I don’t have an ICE car, by the way. Nor will I buy one.
Ok?
Asking a question is making shit up?
Why are you so angry towards me?
No, making shit up is making shit up.
I’m being terse with you because you’re spreading disinformation about EVs that was thoroughly debunked years ago.
Then, when corrected, you’re just jumping to the next piece of disinformation.
We must be talking about different conversations
Sodium batteries are coming, and lithium batteries can be recycled so a lesser evil I guess.
