4 ms·

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? M

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.

PKop 3y ago
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-carplay-evs-with-googles-help-2023-03-31/ 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?
nradov 3y ago
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.
- simfree 3y ago
  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.
thfuran 3y ago
>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.
joezydeco 3y ago
This is pretty much what Volvo did on the first generation XC40 Recharge. I have one, and it feels completely normal.

PKop 3y ago

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-carplay-evs-with-googles-help-2023-03-31/ 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?

nradov 3y ago

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.

simfree 3y ago
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.

thfuran 3y ago

>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.

joezydeco 3y ago

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