Evs are not about eliminating pollution, just substantially reducing it.

I don’t expect first gen Teslas to survive long. When any new technology appears, normally the life on that is reduced (see BMWs). ABS had a short life years ago, same with several actuators on the vehicle. After learning and improving, it increased the life significantly.

BEV will have to go through this cycle. Different companies are taking different strategies, Toyota is being Toyota and reducing the number of changes for each iteration (that’s why they’re recognized as reliable). GM is taking a more aggressive approach.
Others seems to be in trouble, like FCA (Stellantis may be their salvation), Subaru (will it disappear?) and others

Besides that, business models are being challenged, a total lifecycle may be the way to go to maximize earnings. But ir may also hurt other metrics.

Let’s see

Good reason not to buy either car brand.

GM is also doing this with SuperCruise, but there it makes some sense. The subscription provides updates to the roads where SuperCruise can be used, extending its usefulness. If you don't pay the subscription, all the other features of cruise control works, just not SuperCruise.

Having to pay a subscription for something like heated seats though is just massively stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE5...hannel=TopGear
I found that quite interesting.

And while in the States Toyota is determined to bring V6s and V8s, here in the UK the majority of the line-up is already Hybrid only or small turbo engines. Same for Lexus. In fact only the RC F and LC come with anything other than Hybrid

And of course there are the "exclusive because we are making this stuff up" articles already appearing with "our renderings" of the car. Example from autoexpress.co.uk The "Toyota BZ" done from the line drawings that were released.

Looks like every other EV Crossover.

https://media.autoexpress.co.uk/imag...e%20images.jpg

Component level repair died in the mid 90s while I was still neck deep in it. It needs to make a comeback.

Modern cars, and their accessories/technology, are more and more expensive to repair and keep on the road. Good luck convincing someone in a lower income bracket to keep a car worth $3000 when it costs $1000 to replace a headlamp assembly.

I strongly oppose "throw away" culture in all forms, but the automakers (and the regulations forced on them by governments) make it harder and harder to justify keeping older cars running.

People will find a way. :)

Like the LEDs on this 86... I have no intention of keeping them on the car forever. I'm going to remove them and put them in a box after i get some Vlands so I can get back to having a headlight that costs $20 to replace instead of $1000. Some of this "forward thinking" is super backward for the consumer. I agree with you there. :bonk:

There are used headlight assemblies and aftermarket assemblies that are cheaper. Just saying. Many cheap and base cars still come with halogen bulbs or LED replacement bulbs. Even if the LEDs are integrated, they typically outlast the life of the car. I just don’t see the doom and gloom here.

I don’t like throw away culture either. It seems like a double standard for a company like Apple to promote recycling while simultaneously encouraging us to upgrade phones all the time. Often manufacturers design in a product to fail or with planned obsolescence to increase profits with more turnover. This is true in the absence of regulations.

Many older cars can be driven just fine, so I don’t know what you mean. Maybe you can clarify. On the other hand, newer cars do have to meet greater demands from regulations, but this has always been the case. If anything, the cars now last longer than ever, so there is less need to upgrade, but repairs might be more expensive today than in the past, even if they happen less often. Although, the manufacturers definitely don’t want people hanging onto cars forever.

With EVs, there is the potential to have a car that lasts a very long time. Repairs might be more expensive if they are needed, but the incidence will be less and the service requirements will be much less.

Well, that's where OEMs piss me off. I understand parts aren't free, and you need to charge for them, but what do you think the profit margin on a $1,000 headlight is, particularly when it is a part on a $25,000 to $30,000 car?

I mean does anyone really think that a pair of headlights is 6% to 8% of the cost of building the vehicle?

Reminds me of an article that tried to "build" a car from OEM components. I believe they reached about 10x the cost of the car, and that's without the chassis.

I’ve read that too. I don’t think the profit margins are high. I think manufacturing efficiency and volume keeps costs down on the actual cars. It could also be because they have a mandate to supply and stock parts. I’m sure this would be at a huge loss if they didn’t jack up the price.

We use these or ones like these at work. $1200 a piece. They should just buy us iPhones. It would be cheaper. How is that possible? Economies of scale is my best guess. I figure it is a similar situation with cars. Parts might not get the same break. There are higher margins per part because there are more losses across parts.

https://www.hitechwireless.com/kenwo...hoCnKEQAvD_BwE

I think you may be reading the price incorrectly on these, looks like they are $200 a piece, but still I get your point.

I'm sure some of the pricing has to do with keeping the stock available for 10 years, etc, but still!

Yeah thanks. Messed that up. They are the NX-P500. Just $200. Still, $200 sounds like a lot when you can get some Android tablets for far less.