The current complaints about E-cars appear similar to those that surrounded ICE cars in the 1970's and 1980's. Such complaints were then mostly eliminated by Japanese manufacturers, leading to them replacing European and American manufacturers in many markets.

Perhaps the lesson is that absolute attention to the smallest details is needed to avoid producing 0.1%, or even 0.0001%, of vehicles that can cause severe reputational damage, i.e. an attitude quite different from the "move fast and break things" approach.

Speculation: I suspect it's because they use the engine switch as an excuse to redo the rest of the car.

This has always been a problem for me. Why do they always need to design a completely new car, when they could basically just slot in the battery and motors?

Manufacturers could make a $20000 electric car that is equal to an equivalent-costing existing gas car (like a Camry or Corolla) in terms of capability. Reuse most of the same parts and technology from the original, just make it electric. Consumers would lap it up, not to mention how much it would help the environment. And yet, they don't, for seemingly no reason.

To be fair, there are differences between ICE cars and EVs. The battery and motors go under the body, not in front of it. But I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to.

All we get are premium-level cars that are slowly coming down in price, when what we really need (to get normal people to switch to electric) is a Camry-level electric car that is Camry-level cheap.

>The battery and motors go under the body, not in front of it.

Doesn't that strike you as a rather large change? Significantly changing the center of mass on multiple axes and the allocation of space within the body of the car seems like a pretty big deal as far as the design of a car goes. And that's ignoring the fundamental differences in characteristics between an ICE and an electric motor and what effects that and the different placement has on the drive train and other systems.

They want to build elaborate "subscription models" like some sort of web SaaS product.

"We do believe there are subscription revenue opportunities for us," Kummer said. GM Chief Executive Mary Barra is aiming for $20 billion to $25 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions by 2030."[0]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/gm-plans-phase-out-apple-...

I can't overstate how unappealing this sounds, and how little faith I have in these companies to build "software on wheels" that works well, isn't buggy, doesn't have to be updated all the time, doesn't get in the way of the 1 thing I want the car to do: drive me where I want to go without interference.. while providing something necessary and functional that justifies subscription payments. Why would anyone want to pay Chevy for presumably what they can already get on their phones etc instead of just buying a normal functional car without pointless bugs?

Several manufacturers actually tried that but the results were garbage and the cars didn't sell well. It was mainly a shortcut to produce compliance vehicles for sale in jurisdictions such as California that required every manufacturer to sell a certain number of zero emission vehicles. The optimal packaging of batteries and electric motors is just too different to work well with vehicle architectures that were intended for ICE.

Even then, the Fiat 500e compliance car could have had a fairly large frunk had Fiat cared to not make giant plastic spacers to fill it out under the hood.

Compliance cars were just that, minimum viable products that manufacturers made plenty of crummy decisions on needlessly.

This is pretty much what Volvo did on the first generation XC40 Recharge. I have one, and it feels completely normal.

They’re all brand new models. With ICE models, the drivetrains are rarely all-new. The platforms are shared across multiple models. So you rarely have a 100% new IVE car.

The software and firmware is extremely shoddy on most EVs.

Poorest quality parts, outsourced software development, outsourced hardware engineering, complete ambivalence on the part of the C-suite about the quality of their vehicles and future of the company.

You’d think! I’m curious how this compares to the first few years of any entirely new model.

Perhaps it’s partly because it’s not just the same kinds of parts in different form factors and configurations. It’s an entirely new paradigm of parts for all the steps of the supply chain. A fraction of the parts, but still a brand new set of challenges.

Plus ~new software in and to manage those parts.

I wonder if it's harder to find skilled people to work on EVs.

Like, Ubuntu just works. I love it. It's great. But so many of the most knowledgeable and most skilled people are over on Arch.

Maybe they're working on stuff ICEs already solved, but the ICE people who know about those solutions are still working on ICE?

Maybe it's too different to.just directly copy and paste, and what they really need is to get the same people who solved the problem the first time?