Mazda also have an all-electric car, the Mx-30. (Starting MSRP $33,470)
Toyota/Subaru aren't much better. Japanese carmakers seem to hope that BEVs are only a fad.
It has a range of a “city car”, but a price of EVs with double the range.
It has max 50kW DC charging, while the competition has >100kW speeds. This makes the short range even more limiting.
It’s not even powerful, even though high torque is the one easy trick for EVs.
It’s a conversion of a gas car, not a dedicated platform, which wastes cabin and storage space. Mazda failed to keep the same front/rear weight balance making the car reportedly handle poorly.
It’s technically at the level of 2009 Renault Zoe or the old Leaf, but for a price of 2019 eNiro or the current Kona and Cupra Born.
I agree that the price is too high, but that is the case for all EVs
> It’s a conversion of a gas car, not a dedicated platform
Maybe because the platform was so safe/good... I love my current Mazda CX-5 (not EV)
Platform matters. BEV platforms are skateboards with flat floor and wheels basically at the very corners. OTOH CX-30 has an empty transmission tunnel taking up cabin space, and is so cramped they couldn't even fit normal-sized rear doors, and it's almost a 2-seater. Dedicated EVs of the same length have full-sized doors and spacious rear seats.
Mazda took out the engine, and didn't rearrange or rebalance anything else to match. No extra storage. They just left a hole and dangling cables under the hood. They've taken a front-heavy car platform and unbalanced it by making the the rear heavier.
EVs are expensive mainly because of batteries, but this one has a half-sized battery for a price of a full-sized one. You're not even paying for a better rest of the car. It's just a small mid-range Mazda with a low-end EV tech that is 10 years behind. The EV side of it is really really bad. Old models of Zoe and Leaf that you can get for <$10K have this level of range and performance.
It just didn't come from dinosaurs, it's still a long hydrocarbon that burns.
The fuel in TFA game from ag-waste. So presumably it's carbon neutral on a ~1-2yr timeline.
No amount of time producing "nearly neutral" increases to the atmospheric reservoir will produce an improvement in runaway existing CO2 feedback loops.
Neither make sense compared to halving our speed limits.
https://electrek.co/2022/09/12/tesla-access-all-the-batterie...
Do this exercise, pick a workman's work vehicle that has a hybrid version. Make note the mpg difference between the hybrid and regular model. I do mean a workman's vehicle, not a hybrid Versa or the like. A full sized van. A pickup.
Take the Tesla battery pack kWh and divide by the workman's hybrid drivetrain's batt pack. This is how many workman's vehicles could be hybridized with one Tesla.
Look up, make an estimate, the miles a workman drives per year. Do the same for the tesla.
Calculate the fuel burned by one tesla and N regular workman's vehicles and compare that to N hybrid vehicles + one Honda accord.
The scenario with the Tesla ends up burning (much) more gasoline than with the hybrids.
Now multiply that the number of Tesla's made per year.
Is this number high or lower than the number of workman's vehicles made every year?
Note, for simplicity, we haven't even considered far more damaging scenarios involving heavy vehicles doing stop-go all day. Like a municipal van. Or a garbage truck. Or package delivery.
Also note, for simplicity I did not consider the CO2 emission of driving a Tesla. I don't want to get into a "greenified grid" debate.
Teslas are about making rich yuppies keep their cake and eating it too. It makes them feel good, neigh superior, about their over indulgent, over consuming lifestyle. If they truly cared about CO2 they'd be clamoring for lower speed limits.
However, I am quite excited about using them for CO2-neutral long-distance flights. Being able to reach any place on earth in 24h is awesome, and there is simply no battery technology that can power a practical airplane.