SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The company's CEO claims that affordable and reliable vehicles with combustion engines are a priority for US buyers:
Mazda is late to the electrification party. The MX-30 is far from being the roaring success the Japanese automaker had hoped it would be. It was axed from the United States at the end of the 2023 model year due to poor sales. The range-extending version with a rotary engine is only offered in certain markets, and the US is not on the list. In addition, the EZ-6 electric sedan isn't coming here either. However, the situation isn't all that bad.
Why? Because Americans primarily want gas cars. Speaking with Automotive News, Mazda CEO Masahiro Moro said ICE has a long future in America. Even at the end of the decade, traditional gas cars and mild-hybrid models will make up about two-thirds of annual sales. Plug-in hybrids and EVs will represent the remaining third. In other words, most vehicles will still have a gas engine five years from now.
Mazda's head honcho primarily referred to entry-level models, specifically the 3 and CX-30. Moro believes EV growth in the US has slowed down in the last 18 months or so, adding the trend will likely continue in the foreseeable future. That buys the company more time to develop a lithium-ion battery entirely in-house. The goal is to have it ready for 2030 in plug-in hybrids and purely electric cars. Expect a much higher energy density and "very short" charging times. Interestingly, the engineers already have a "very advanced research base for solid-state batteries."
In the meantime, work is underway on a two-rotor gas engine that will serve as a generator.
Related:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday December 12 2024, @11:47PM (6 children)
Oh he's going to get it, for years all that's been permitted is virtue signalling nonsense along the lines of "The emperor has no clothes" and daring to tell the truth or talk about the real world is going to result in every other automaker ganging up on him LOL. It'll be fun to watch. Maybe I'll buy a Mazda next, because of it, LOL.
The real killer for EVs is insisting on adding hypercomplicated and expensive to maintain AI driving nonsense nobody wants and enormous insane huge batteries no one needs nor can afford. It's been at least since covid that I've driven more than 60 miles in a day, so 100 mile range new would be reasonably sufficient for me. I would imagine there's no profit in a car like that so we're only going to be offered weird smart cars with hundreds of easily broken expensive to replace self driving sensors and batteries with 600 mile range that cost as much as a house.
So a Toyota 2024 BZ4X might replace my old Yaris commuter car. The problem is the cost is well over $50K delivered and has a range over 250 miles. Most of the money is in the battery and I would be VERY happy to pay, $10K for a 50 mile range BZ4X. I have no interest in paying an extra $40K or so to drive an extra 200 miles. Also with 1/5 the battery pack size it would probably drive like an absolute bat out of hell, which would be fun. Its like a 4500 pound car with only a 200 HP electric motor like one of those 1970s land yachts from GM that were so slow they could barely get out of their own way. With a smaller lighter battery that thing might be fun. Not $50K worth of fun, hell no.
I'll probably end up IRL with a nice Corolla that cost a hair over $20K and I can buy $30K of gas with my savings of not buying an EV which at $5/gallon for gas (LOL much lower where I live) that's 6000 gallons of gas which at minimum 32 MPG would be 192K miles. So if I drive the car longer than 200K miles or so, it would be cheaper to buy the EV. My Yaris has about 55K miles on it which is about 5500 miles/year (I WFH most of that time) and at 5.5K miles/year 190K miles would be 34.5 years, lets round down, so if I buy a BZ4X in 2025 it'll start saving me money over buying a Corolla in ... the year 2059. Yeah I don't think so.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2024, @01:02AM (3 children)
Insurance
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday December 13 2024, @02:50AM (2 children)
That's true. I once did the math on my truck that I had for 34 years, and something like 80% of the cost of ownership was insurance. (No accidents, bottom tier cost.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2024, @05:29AM (1 child)
Well, insurance by definition is going to cost you more than the price of an oopsie over the long run. Duh. That's how they make their bonuses, as well as denying you claims of course. Duh. What did you think they do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13 2024, @05:57AM
They got states to mandate you had to have it. "Duh"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday December 13 2024, @09:02AM (1 child)
It's longer than that. You haven't counted the cost of the electricity. Don't know what it is where you are, but here it's about 25% of the cost of petrol. So extend that 192K miles to about 233K miles.
Also, the time cost of money. I worked out it wouldn't ever be worth me getting one. The interest on the difference would pay much more than the petrol difference forever.
Also here in Oz we have a surcharge on EV registration to cover the cost of the taxes on petrol that you aren't paying. You have to submit the mileage each year and they add it to the bill, which makes it even worse.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday December 14 2024, @08:10PM
I live in a "big recreational state" and our state paid to maintain our roads, which are driven on by out-of-state peeps, via a relatively high gas tax, so regardless of your mailing address if you drive on our roads you burn our overtaxed gas to pay for road wear and tear.
The state's solution to freeloading EVs is an ever increasing flat annual tax surcharge on state resident EV owners, I just checked today and it's now nearing $20/month going to the state road maintenance fund as a surcharge on top of existing registration fees. Its kind of wild, they only recently increased it from $4 to $5 per month for gas-burning cars. There is also a hybrid tax surcharge in between.
As a WFH guy, I'm only burning about $40/month of gas, so even if my electricity were free (it is not) then I'd only "save" $20/month due to the EV registration surcharge.
My guess is they'll eventually give up on gas taxes to fund road repair, and simply increase the sales tax so as to capture the cost of having out-of-state visitors on our roads. It seems more direct, if they drive to some resort just tax the heck out of the resort directly rather than elaborate schemes involving gas station taxes.
I would agree with the assessment that as currently designed and marketed I could never save money or the environment by replacing a gas commuter car with an EV. If they would sell short range EVs... then maybe, but they refuse, so people respond by refusing to buy EVs.