• grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t call Kia nor Hyundai nor Toyota nor Honda anything close to pseudo luxury. Has the bar been lowered because of all the plasticated electronics and DUAL ZONE AC?

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fit and finish of interiors in general has really fallen… literally plastic everywhere. Uphostery, leather, wood/wood-effect etc are all mostly gone

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s quite a wide range within those brands. Is it safe to say that you would consider Lexus or Acura to be at least pseudo luxury? What about their entry models that are just a rebranded version of the Honda/Toyota model?

        Hell, how do we even define luxury? You can get heated leather seats in just about anything these days, and a few decades ago those were both ultra premium options.

        • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a lot of producers, that’s not even true for ICE cars anymore. More safety features and emission regulations make them more expensive to produce relative to larger cars.

    • ElegantBiscuit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The large profit margin SUVs are necessary for a company to achieve scale to then be able to produce the smaller cheaper stuff. Fixed costs like the factory, tooling, training, designing, that all takes a lot of money up front before even selling a single vehicle, and the smaller and cheaper the vehicle coming out of that production pipeline is, the longer the payback period will be. And when we’re talking about billions of dollars in cost, it’s hard to remain solvent when interest payments on the debt grow exponentially over time.

      It’s why before tesla there had not been an American auto company startup for like 70 years, Tesla almost went bankrupt, and Rivian is just starting to head in the right direction. Lucid is probably fucked and they’re mostly Saudi owned these days anyways, and the rest of the US EV startup space ranges from a joke to a scam.

      What legacy automakers already have in staff and part of the production line established is actually kind of useless when they have to wait to establish their electric motor, battery, and chassis production, which probably just means a new factory anyways. Give it a few years and the cheaper smaller stuff will come, because right now AFAIK only tesla actually has the free cash flow to fund an EV economy car at scale. Everyone else is still sinking billions establishing any EV production at all, and interest rates aren’t helping the speed of their progress either.

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s more than one way to skin a cat. The Chinese EV companies that have come up in the last few years use a diversity of business strategies, not all involving high margin SUVs. BYD’s cars, for example, are spinoffs of its battery manufacturing business.

      • notonReddit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aaand just like thst the actual thoughtful response is downvoted in the comment section. This places becomes more reddit each day.

        • Evkob@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Car companies needs SUVs to survive financially!” is not a thoughtful response. It can easily be disproven by looking at the first 60 or so years of the automobile industry before SUVs were even a thing. The SUV takeover is a pretty recent phenomenon which has taken shape over the last twenty years.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it was based on light truck exemptions from CAFE standards, so they can be cheaper to build and sell at a higher margin. But now average buyers don’t want anything smaller for fear of being run down by all the trucks and suvs.

  • ceiphas@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You say that targetting only the top 5% restricts the adoption rate. Consider me shocked…

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        unfortunately we have to have a competing option to vote for with our wallets. There is not a single affordable EV available in the US.

        • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf are both under $30k, and there’s a Mini Cooper that’s just barely over $30k. There’s only 1 other car from Chevy that’s cheaper than the Bolt, and only 2 models from Mini cheaper than their EV. Nissan seems to be a leader with cheap cars, with 6 cheaper models than the Leaf. When you add in the tax rebates for buying electric that reduces the price an additional $7500.

            • Throwaway@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well yeah. We have safety laws. You cant build a car out of chinesium and have it pass US Safety tests.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You know whats safe? A smaller, cheaper engine with a lower top speed. I dont need hundreds of miles of range and 100mph top speed

                • Throwaway@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well you need a strong engine to get up to speed in a decent amount of time, and to go up hills full loaded. You also need tall gears for fuel efficiency. Combined, it means almost every production car can go 100+ mph.

                  Also range? Thats just a gas tank. A 10 gallon gas tank will take most small cars 300 miles, its not a lot. Why focus on range? Seems weird to me.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s great. Half of America needs a 15k car. That’s the magic number for Mass adoption.

            • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And where are you going to find any new car in the US for $15k? The average cost of a new car in the US this year was over $40k, and there are several EV options available for practically anyone in the market for a new car.

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we start with an expensive sports car we will make enough money that it will eventually trickle down to affordable vehicles.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are several EVs out now for under $50k, and a few under $40k, so things are improving.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s fine for people who live in cities (which I acknowledge is a lot of people), but for people who live in smaller more remote and more rural places, it will never be possible to fullly be free of personal vehicles.

        • Odelay42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I want to ride a bike really bad, but cars have killed more cyclists in my city year over year my entire life.

          It’s just simply terrifying out there when a douche in an Escalade is in a hurry.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You could just get a small EV like a Citroën Ami but having more than two wheels on a vehicle does make you an eco-terrorist according to Lemmy.

            • Odelay42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              We hardly have any small EVs in the US. I’m keen on the mini that’s coming out next year, but 40k is a big ask for a short commute.

              I guess it’s busloads of tweakers for me for a while.

        • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I stopped riding my motorcycle because of idiots in cars. No way in hell am I taking an electric bicycle to get groceries

          • wmassingham@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If electric bikes were the only thing allowed on back roads, you’d never be able to make enough grocery/dump/Tractor Supply runs to have time for anything else in your life.

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. Electric bikes are a great solution for those that don’t need to haul much or go far. Weather permitting of course. I sold my ICE sedan about a year ago and don’t miss it.

        • Adramis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you understand what rural means. There were people who had to travel 1 hr+ by car to get to the local grocery store where I came from. An ebike isn’t appropriate for places where you may need to travel 60+ miles, and/or in snow or bad conditions that might persist for weeks, and/or in ungodly hot / humid conditions that also persist for weeks. All three of those are true for decent swaths of the year in my area.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe, but I feel like that ship has sailed in the US. Both for practical/economical reasons and because will resist. If half the people fought against wearing masks to protect vulnerable people from covid, good luck getting them to give up their "single family home with a yard + 2 cars” lifestyle. For those fortunate enough to have a single family home, that is.

      I’m not saying it SHOULD be this way, and I’m not arguing against reducing cars with public transit and walkable/bikeable towns. However, from my perspective inside suburbia that borders rural areas, electrification of vehicles and supplying the grid with renewables is 1000x more likely as the path to fix this stuff environmentally.

      And to get rid of cars for non-environmental reasons, I think that will be even more difficult. I mean, I visited Sweden earlier this year and for all the progressive stuff they’re way ahead of us on, there are still cars everywhere. They are smaller, more sensible cars with a much larger proportion being electric, but cars just the same.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are screwed in the US because one side is actively and honestly against transit. The other side plays transit lip service but their actions prove they only want transit as a way to funnel money to some supporter (and so projects cost far too much and what we have runs bad schedules)

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah… essentially, one side is bad faith crazy trying to burn it all down, and the other side is full of politicians.

          They are not tHe SaMe, but neither is pushing hard for it. But at least some slow progress may be possible if the typical politicians stay in power.

    • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If we started now, we’d be ready in a couple decades in all but the most compact metro areas. And that’s after we build the requisite political will. The US fucked itself hard leaning into cars as transport.

      But that’s reality for most of us living in the burbs where the schools are better and the neighborhoods are better for kid stuff.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        neighborhoods are better for kid stuff

        Maybe it’s just me growing up in the city, but I would not want to raise my kid in an American-style suburb. Imagine being a tween but never being able to go anywhere without your parents, because everything is too far away to walk or bike and public transport is not available. Yikes.

        • infamousta@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          My kid is younger but we moved from the suburbs to a dense urban area shortly after he was born. I have to agree even though he’s not yet that independent. Some of my friends back in the burbs were like “what are you going to do with a kid in the city?” But we ride bikes to parks and gardens, go to different museums and the zoo, visit festivals for different cultures. It’s pretty awesome and almost every weekend is an eventful thing for us.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            But we ride bikes to parks and gardens, go to different museums and the zoo, visit festivals for different cultures. It’s pretty awesome and almost every weekend is an eventful thing for us.

            A thing often misunderstood by suburb and rural denizens is that when beautiful and interesting things are more easily available to you you can actually make meaningful use of them. Sure, they’ll brave the city once every six months and maybe go to the zoo or a cultural event once or twice a year, but nothing beats being able to do these things on a random weekend (or sometimes even weeknight) without much hassle, additional cost, or preparation.

            • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea, Cities are great and all, but I’d argue nothing beats having 103 acres of forest and field and a house or two to play around in. I don’t need to go to a park, I step outside. I can have different hobbies with space for a wood shop, a sawmill, a backhoe etc… I can ride 4wheelers and offroad my crossover on a private road / path we built. I don’t have to hear sirens daily/nightly, or worry about lights shining in my bedroom window. I can go for a walk or hike on my property and not see any strangers. I can go swimming or fishing in my pond, I can play badminton and boccie ball and croquet in my lawn.

              I’m not saying that cities are bad, but to claim rural people don’t have beautiful and interesting things easily available to them is just misunderstanding what some people find beautiful and interesting. I’m just back from London, and while Christmas at Kew was amazing, and better than anything I’ve ever seen in the US, it’s not like I don’t have access to theaters, stores, and events like Christmas Markets, though we do them as summer festivals and the like. They’re also ~ 30 minutes away, similar to how long I’d spend on getting to the tube, on it, and getting to the event location from my hotel. It’s just far more convenient to walk a much shorter distance to the car, drive to the local small city, and walk a shorter distance from parking to the festival or show, or whatever. We have local museums, but I think you overestimate how much people who aren’t tourists go to the museums. I haven’t been to any of my local ones in quite a while, and I remember my NYC family never went to the museums - it’s always the “huh, yea, I never had a reason to go outside of a tourist family member showing up”.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying that cities are bad, but to claim rural people don’t have beautiful and interesting things easily available to them is just misunderstanding what some people find beautiful and interesting.

                They may have accessible nature, though not all of them even enjoy that in my experience, but they often do not have easily accessible cultural experiences at all. Not everyone appreciates the things they live by, and that’s just humanity. We can be miserable anywhere.

                But it’s been my experience living in the states that it’s extremely commonplace for people to shit on the very idea of cities, and especially raising children in them, and overwhelmingly encourage people to set up shop miles away from their jobs in the suburbs and rural areas despite the downsides.

                • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The main thing I see is our cities still often require you to have a car, yet rent is 3x or more what it is out in the burbs. It’s hard to make that work. I don’t think anyone likes commuting a long way. Though I think we need both more housing in cities to try and drive the prices down and more WFH so less commuting in general.

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is rural life though, not exactly suburban. Suburbs have the worst attributes of the city and countryside, while having little benefits of both)

              • infamousta@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As the gp poster I didn’t mean to sound like I’m dumping on rural life. I grew up in a rural area, riding four-wheelers and roaming the woods till the sun went down. One of my best friends started a family around the same time I did and opted to buy some acreage a decent commute away from town. They ride dirt bikes with their kids on literal mountains in the backyard, have a chicken coop and machine shop, deer wander up and eat their vegetable garden. It’s super rad and I wouldn’t mind having gone that route either.

                I really didn’t dig the suburbs and having to drive literally everywhere though. On the balance I liked the diversity in the city and having easy access to metropolitan amenities. I’d never shit on the rural route and it may well be where I end up, I just thought it was wild how much blowback I got from wanting to raise a kid in the city.

        • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My local huge park, pool, and sports complex is .7 miles. I have multiple stores and restaurants .5 miles away. Our library is also about .7 miles away. My burb is relatively walkable and perfectly bike-able.

          Our grid has its own problems and is completely unsafe for cyclists a lot of the time. I know; I work there. My city has removed lanes from streets to create space for bikes and people still get killed by idiots in cars. Still inadequate public transit. Only more walkable than my own burb in certain, hyper expensive neighborhoods. Cheaper areas have homeless problems (warmer climate) resulting in tons of property crimes (mostly stolen bikes and break-ins). Many encounters with bonk-shit crazy guys yelling at stop signs (and people). Some of them have large, aggressive dogs. Oh, and then there’s the fires they start by attempting to cook or warm themselves and then getting high or drunk.

          Frankly I would be stoked to live in a townhouse or condo or something on the grid. All my favorite restaurants are down there, lots to do, etc. But it’s shit for kids and the schools are rough as fuck.

    • Mio@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. One alternative is communal traffic. People are just to lazy so they can’t wait for it. If every car was indeed banned, gues how good the communal traffic would then be. Since the need increase, a lot. They would be going a lot often and suddenly there are no more cars blocking the roads. Also note that you would not have to be driving so you could do other stuff than looking at the road. And you dont have to save up money for the cars. No need to fix the car when it breaks. No need to find a gas station in time. Just less things to think about. Just look at how the flying business work today, no average people own their own plane. But still people make use of communal planes.

      • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing beats covinience. If it’s easy, people will pay up. That means you are right, that if the communal traffic improves as you say, it would get alot more people using it.

        But unfortunately, cars are just so, so convinient, it’s almost impossible to beat, if you don’t straight up outlaw them.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can’t, though. It would cost trillions of dollars and massive population relocation for it to happen.

      Cars are here to stay. The only reduction I can see happening is if fully autonomous cars are a thing. I’m betting they won’t be sold to the public and will be used like Uber.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. It would cost trillions of dollars - but it would be cheaper than car infrastructure. The key is to start building and running using transit now where it makes the most sense and expand that.

        • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The dirty little secret is we’ve basically done that already - building train lines or subways in the US is so astronomically expensive that no one is doing it “for profit” anymore, and it looks likely that it’ll never become financially viable unless something changes massively. I mean, from what I can tell NYC can’t profitably retrofit the subways, forget about building a new line. Amtrack is constantly in bankruptcy or being bailed out. No one is going to build a modern train line from Rochester NY to NYC again - there just isn’t going to be the passengers.

        • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re delusional if you think there’s even a remote possibility of that ever happening in the US without inventing a time machine to stop the auto industry from killing the rail industry in the early 1900s.

          The cat has been out of the bag way too long to put it back in now.

  • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is exactly what I want, I don’t need 300 miles of range, I don’t need luxury entertainment systems. I need a simple vehicle with decently comfortable seats and a shitty Walmart $80 bluetooth head unit. In Europe and various parts of China / Japan you can get a small electric vehicle for like 8,000 US dollars and that’s what I want here God damn it

    • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly that would be great - make the head unit similar to a car from '07/'08 and then if we want to upgrade it wity something aftermarket, we can. Then we can choose what bells and whistles we want.

      No autopilot, not internet connected BS. Heck I’d even go without adaptive cruise control and lane assist.

      07/08 really was one of the best eras for car interior, because the head units weren’t usually integrated into the dash, meaning you didn’t have to replace trim pieces with your unit in order to upgrade the damned stereo.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Heck the lane assist, adaptive cruise, and auto pilot isn’t that crazy pricy either.

        The comma 3 plus harness is 1500.

    • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      300 is more than I need, but I do want 200 miles of range.

      I would absolutely buy the Mini if I could expect to go over a hundred miles from 80-20% for 10 years, but with a 110 mile range on day one, that just isn’t happening. The 2025 model is rumored to have increased range. If that’s the case, I’ll probably get one.

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        but I do want 200 miles of range

        But why?

        It seems like many people (me too) base what they think they’ll need off of what they’re accustomed to. My car will get 275-300 miles out of a tank of gas so it just seems crazy to accept less than half of that. But I don’t actually drive that much. Trips where I start full and have to refill before my destination are very rare. Doubling the refueling stops and extending their length wouldn’t actually bother me much, especially considering that for my day to day my car would just charge overnight and I never have to go out of my way for it. I guess what I’m getting at is that if I really think about it, a 110-150 mile range is probably about as much as I should be paying for.

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          My EV has 280km range and it’s a bit short. I would prefer to have 450km.

          Reasons:

          • charging above 80% is slow and bad for the baterry, you also don’t go to 0% before charging. so on most days I don’t actually have 280km range, more like 200km

          • I drive more during the weekend, usually just around 200-300km. I can charge for free at work but with 280 range I can’t charge for the whole weekend which would be nice and would reduce my costs to nearly 0

          • on longer trips 280km means a stop for charging about every 2h. Make it 3h and it would be perfect

          280km is enough for daily driving but in my case, 50% bigger battery would a big improvement overall.

        • Narauko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In my case I live in a place where cities are spread out and where it gets cold in the winter. My parents live 40 mile away and don’t have an EV charger or a 220v outlet in their garage. Take 10% max range off in the winter, and I would have to use the only charging station (Tesla supercharger) or spend at least 6 hours charging at their house to be comfortable getting home in case of extra traffic or detours. I semi regularly drive even further, 80-100 miles one way. I’d have to stop to charge on my way there and on my way back in the winter, adding at least 30 minutes to an already 2 hour drive. There is also poor charging density on the route, so it has to be planned.

          I drive a plug in hybrid now, and can get to work and home on battery only, but only in the summer and no extra stops or alternate routes are possible. People start getting antsy under a 1/4-1/8th tank of gas, it’s worse with battery. Add to that I am able to charge at home, if you have to go visit a charging station because you live in a ln apartment or townhouse without garage space, you need at least 5 days of charge range between fill ups, because most everyone isn’t going to want to add a 30 minute stop to charge daily.

        • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That is absolutely correct. 110-150 miles of range is exactly what I want. Actually, I was figuring 100 miles at and-of-life, which is basically 120, or or so, at purchase.

          The reason I say I will not buy a sub-200 mile car is that one doesn’t drive an EV from 100% to 0% charge. Everyone I know runs 80/20. That takes 40% off the top. A 200-mile car is only good for 120 without pushing the battery.

          Those numbers don’t even take into account the fact that when I do want to travel 100+ miles, I’m not doing it on city streets at 20 mph. Freeway driving can be expected to take at least another 15% off the EPA range, considerably more with climate control and music.

          Suddenly, even with that 200-mile car, I’m looking at a drive to Sacramento trying to decide whether to over charge, stop on the way, or drive slow with no tunes and no AC. That’s OK with me. I’m willing to make adjustments for the benefits of running electric, but I’m not going to get something that can’t be used for longer trips.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it largely boils down to 2 things: How spread out things are in the US that can result in longer trips rather frequently, and the lack of electric car infrastructure.

          These 2 things combined mean people are more concerned about the range that they can get compared to an ICE car. The only EV chargers I know of in my town are just down the street from me and are locked up 24/7 because they’re on the property of an elementary school (stupid idea on the town’s part putting them there). This would mean that if I had an at home charger and an EV with a 100 mile range, I could get about 45 miles out before I would have to turn around and come back to charge it. If I want to go to the city for something (a day trip to the museum, for example), that’s 75 miles - one way. I used to make that drive daily in my old RAV-4 for work, and it isn’t a big deal when the round trip would be a half a tank of gas, but that would mean about 25 miles of battery to find a charger once I get there, or finding at least one stop on the way up and probably on the way back as well. And that’s in optimal conditions. I never saw any EV chargers on that commute in the 5 years I had that job, so it would probably mean going out of the way to find charging stations, which would add additional miles to your battery usage.

          Once the charging infrastructure is more robust (and hopefully isn’t monopolized by Tesla), I think this kind of thing will be much less of a concern, but people are still going to be bothered by it if they have to stop for long periods of time frequently in order to charge their car.

        • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They probably don’t.

          A surprisingly small amount of products need to malfunction before people get the idea that they all will.

          I still hear about how my Samsung phone will explode any second now.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The models sold in my country haven’t burst into flame yet, and they sold a lot of units here. Honestly, EV fire is my biggest worry, so I’ll probably wait for another year before considering getting a chinese ev to see if there is no fire incidents or other dealbreaking issues, but they’re looking pretty solid so far.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      An Electric car for 8k€? Where, how, what? Cheapest new I’ve seen is roughly 35k

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Citroen Ami is one, starts around £7700 last i saw, tho it’s a little slow. There were some better ones around 10-13k but i can’t remember their names

  • rab@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ya there’s literally no way for poor people to buy EVs even if they wanted to. Another huge issue is poor people live in apartments and can’t charge EVs at home either.

    • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re being fiscally responsible there’s no way to buy most new cars. People are too used to living well above their means. How these Army recruits straight out of boot camp are dropping 80k on a truck that’ll never even see a sheet of plywood or drywall assuming the bed is even big enough is beyond me.

      I haven’t paid more than 18k on a car and even that felt like too much. And I’m well above the median household income for my region.

      Frankly I wish I didn’t need a car at all, but it’ll be decades before our infrastructure can support that lifestyle if ever. Unless you’re willing to give up an additional 2 to 3 hours per day on travel … and I’m not.

      • rab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ya the most I’ve ever spent on a car is 20k, that was 8 years ago and I’m still driving it. I have a coworker with an EV and it’s really annoying to hear him suggesting switching cars to save money.

      • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The used EV market is what’s really preventing lower-income adoption. The insanity of the secondhand prices over the pandemic is only now beginning to break. I’m seeing polestar 2 models with reasonable miles in the high 20’s. That’s an enormous discount off the sticker. Tesla has also seen serious price drops.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is why car makers need to pursue ideas like e-fuels and hydrogen cars. The obsession with BEVs is tunnel vision, and is doing more harm than good.

      • rab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I like how Toyota continues to pursue hydrogen engines. Their demos are very cool, I especially enjoy the exotic exhaust notes haha

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hydrogen cars pleeeeeease. Hydrogen power is so cool! Internal combustion that outputs water! It’s literally magic! And it’s powered by the most common element in the universe!

    • indigomirage@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes - but a quick glance at the insane profit margins on large SUVs/trucks will tell you why this sadly hasn’t happened.

      Something’s gotta give though…

  • guacupado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is they’re also adding all this other shit that adds up costs. Just make a car, but it doesn’t use gasoline. That’s it.

    • indigomirage@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I got a barebones Chevy Bolt. Simple car - absolutely perfect for the city at times when public transport isn’t an option.

      What’s more - it has AndroidAuto/Carplay (mandatory in any future car purchase for me).

      GM subsequently cancelled the model (though rumours say they’ll bring it back?) and are building bigger cars instead. Ridiculous.

      What we need is a smaller, practical EVs and a robust charging infrastructure. (especially in condos/rentals)

      • thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Similar experience from a European.

        I own a 2015 Vauxhall Adam. It’s a brilliant little petrol car, 3 doors, very small and very reliable.

        GM canned the model in 2019. It makes no sense to me, if they had stuck a battery in it for an electric version I’d have been sold in a heartbeat.

        But no, GM wants to focus on big cars that I don’t want. I don’t want anything bigger than a 3 door hatchback, I’m only 20 and have no kids, why do I need some massive fuckoff SUV???

      • residentmarchant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will never understand how the same people that made the Volt and the Bolt made the Hummer EV

        It’s such a different style, architecture, and platform that you practically can’t share any parts. So whatever they learned from 10 years of selling EVs went out the window.

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, GM wants to get rid of Android Auto and Apple Carplay. They want to exclusively use Android Automotive. It looks like Android Auto but it’s standalone. GM claims this way the smart software will be more integrated with the car’s hardware… which sounds ridiculous to me.

        Edit: More clear (I hope)

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          GM claims this way the smart software will be more integrated with the car’s hardware… which sounds ridiculous to me.

          They likely want to go the Tesla route: features people have to pay multiple times for, rented features, recalls via software update, etc. I believe investors rewarded them when they made this announcement. Everyone should know that in most cases what’s good for investors is bad for customers.

        • indigomirage@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s utterly ridiculous. I will not buy a car without AA/Carplay (I don’t want Android Automotive).

          There’s so much wrong with their proposal. I don’t want my credentials to persist on a shared car! I already have a device that I take with me that has all the connectivity/data I want.

          Basically, if ‘forced’ to buy a car without AA/Carplay they’d better throw in a suction cup mount to stick over top of of the built in display so I can use the device I already pay for…

          • TwanHE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Some of the aftermarket AA kits are actually pretty decent. we basically have a big tablet mounted over the original dash of the safira .

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I suspect that Chevy is worried they won’t be able to compete against the Kia EV price point, but that’s just speculation.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But don’t you want your car to sing to you while it drives itself like a maniac during rush hour because the AI literally wants to beat traffic (very physically).

  • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Everytime I consider buying an EV I do some research and they always seem to have all of the bells and whistles. Then I get to price and it’s like $60,000+ and I can’t help but wonder how much cheaper it could be without all of the added features.

    Edit: I’m not going to reply to everyone and I really should have mentioned since it’s not immediately obvious but I’m Australian. No Chevy volt and and all vehicles are imported increasing prices on top of the usual AUD imbalance.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. Just this, so much. How much would a battery, an electric engine and safety shit cost?

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen conversion kits for old trucks under $10k. So there’s your answer.

        Unfortunately said kits are often lacking in range unless you’re willing to fill your truck box with batteries, because you can’t really retrofit a “skateboard” style battery.

        I literally want that skateboard with seats and a steering wheel. Hell, give me a diesel burning heater and a washer fluid bulb I have to stomp on like I have in my old truck, I’m not picky

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chevy bolt at least has half of the features but still quite a few, I would say a very set of features to include, but I do imagine it would only shave less than 5k if the bolt had the most basic of features. That means it would be 1-2k cheaper as a used vehicle. I do think it’s the more reasonable priced vehicle, and we need more competitors to this vehicle. On the other hand, most of the cost is the battery and it just something researchers must be paid to bring innovations for and its just not reasonable to pay them cheap as they are doing a great thing for humanity. However, this forces companies to charge higher prices and should instead be subsidized without trademark/IP protections restricting its adoption.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only reason they didn’t is because China is getting ready to ship stupid cheap cars to the US.

          • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is that true? Last I heard they couldn’t pass safety regulations.

            I would be for it, we need more companies to show Hyundai how to child proof cars… By child proof I mean making sure the car isn’t so easy to steal, a child could do it.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Last year I bought new Citroen e-berlingo for 25.000€. It would be €32.000 without subsidies but still not 60.000.

  • Shortbus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I can’t be the only one who has noticed the uptick in the negative EV press lately. Is this the same death throws akin to the buggy whip lobby of yore?

    Edit* price needs to be attainable for the many for sure… but the amount of negative press is “sus” (as the kids say)

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are genuinely unimpressed with the high prices and low range numbers on what are supposed to be the next generation of vehicles. Volume and tech advancement were supposed to make them cheap and practical, but all that’s gone up is the price.

      Especially with talk of banning the sale of gas vehicles in the fairly near future, they are going to have to do a lot better than this or a lot of people are just going to end up without any vehicle at all.

      Myself living in a rural, cold climate, 200km from any major center, nobody has made any practical vehicle for me yet. I even already own an EV, but it’s really just a powerful golf cart. Once it gets much below freezing, I’m lucky to make it to a neighbour’s place and back.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think a lot of people are just acknowledging that things haven’t gotten that much better with EVs. I think the lack of charging infrastructure charging time, and range make EVs impractical for many in the USA. Many could commute in one just fine but for long trips they just would be a hassle. Plus they are on average way too expensive.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lithium ion battery technology is not a good fit with the type of vehicles we currently produce. The energy density is nowhere near fossil fuels and this implies a big battery, which also adds mass. By 2027, Land Rover and other makers of SUV will be nudging 3000kg for some of their models.

    IMHO the only viable solution for li-ion is ultralight vehicles. Bicycles and Velomobiles are light enough to get decent range at speed. A bicycle used with integrated high speed rail would solve most of our commuting problems. The fact is, whether you are making tailpipe emissions or not, F=ma. Moving a 3t mass around for one person is always going to use an extravagant amount of energy and that energy has to come from somewhere.

    Work from home, eat less meat, make fewer journeys, use a bike more often, make fewer children. Those are some things most of us can do.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes the energy density is less, but the efficiency is better. ICE wastes like 2/3 of that extra energy. Still has more, but 1/3 that you might think.

    • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Blame the manufacturers and our obsession with driving land whales, not the batteries.

      A Tesla Model 3 SR+ was almost the same weight as a Toyota Camry hybrid of similar shape and size.

      EVs should weigh 2-300kg more at most

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we aim for sustainable living, the number of kids don’t matter, surely?

    • User79185@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “15 minute” suburbs should fix the need of large ass SUVs and such but somehow authorities resist this, like they have a stake in this 🤔 15 minutes cities/villages is a common and logical thing around the world yet in US it is weird… like americans want to drive 20 minutes for fucking 1 liter of Pepsi… Now when car prices are insane more of them wake up. Suburbs should have places to go to, shops, parks, schools

  • magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    The last paragraph of this article is right on. Don’t just tell people to buy EVs and then call it a day. Improve the infrastructure. Make buying an EV feel like less of an unsupported risk.

  • nbafantest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Donald Trumps tariffs have been a disaster

    There are great EVs out there but trump blocked them. We have all lost out

    • Redfugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I saw in Asia there is a Chinese EV, I think the brand is Wuling, for about ~13-15k with about 180 miles of range. Small car but perfect for local driving.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wuling and BYD absolutely dominates cheap EV segment in Asia. Their small EVs basically cost almost a quarter of Hyundai Ioniq 5.

  • Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are giving americans what they want. The real problem is continuing to feed the deep rooted car addiction brought on by lobbying and corporate greed. There has not been a better time to instead invest heavily on public transportation, build extension inter-state, inter-city train systems, subway or rail systems for cities. Overtime phasing out freeways and replacing them walkable districts. I understand this won’t happen over night and cities like Houston and LA are sprawling cities of 100s of miles but it needs to start somewhere and it starts with heavy investment from the federal government. Time to finally invest the tax money back to the taxpayers not defense, wars (direct, proxy or funded) and foreign affairs in the name of “national security”. How about domestic security from corporate greed, price gouging, poor education, horrible Healthcare are system, costly drug prices to say the least. I understand for all these there’s need to be a massive social change booth in the country and in the world’s largest retirement home, US Congress.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t. They are making larger vehicles to keep up with the demands for fuel efficiency (in gasoline vehicles) and max range in electric vehicles because of NHTSA regulations.

      There absolutely have been better times to invest in public transit and expansion of transit systems. You require skilled man power for those things. Not just to build them but to upkeep them. And we’re at a time where there are a lot of things that will need to be fixed first or we won’t be able to have nice things. The mental health crisis for one, and homelessness/ rising housing costs for another. Adding infrastructure skyrockets the cost of living making affordable housing farther out of reach, and that adds fuel to the fire where the mental health crisis is concerned. You touch on corporate greed but you don’t outright say we need more regulation. We do. But to get it we have to have people to enforce it. We don’t have that either.

    • Trollception@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always see the argument for making areas more walkable. But I like a good chunk of Americans live in a subdivision and unless they tear down my neighbors homes to build stores I need to walk like 20 minutes to get anywhere I can purchase something. That said I used to live in Chicago and everything was walkable, however the population density made it possible. I don’t think you can simply make a place more walkable unless the population density supports it.

      • thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel a way to combat suburban hellholes is to at least make it more cycle-friendly in those areas. Big stroads kill any chance of people being able to cycle to stores, I feel a lot of people don’t want to have to drive to get to a Walmart, especially in hot months and would probably prefer to bike it instead. There’s obviously also the health benefits of people cycling too. For those more lazy individuals, e-bikes and e-scooters are a good idea that can help them rely less on their car too, and are far cheaper to run than a full car.

        Eliminating huge sprawling suburbs is a monumental task, but we can at least apply patch fixes for some things at the moment.