Somewhat related: Can someone tell me why all those new electric cars are so poorly designed in terms of size and weight? Most of them weight over 2t and have a large frontal area (VW ID.4 is the prime example). I just want an economical family vehicle (lightweight, hatchback design) and there aren't that many options. Isn't that something loads of people want or am I the exotic one?
I believe the reason is that batteries to make up the 200 mile range people expect are just very heavy. I think older electric vehicles with ~70mi range would have been substantially lighter. I would wager the car you want was actually the 2017-2019 E-Golf.
Modern highway safety standards also tend to increase the hight of windows which tend to also make cars taller to not kill visibility. Look at the 2019 Mazda 3 AWD redesign, especially the hatchback. It looks squished compared to the previous years because they didn't raise the vehicle height, but all the windows start higher in the car body. That trend is true of ICE vehicles as well though.
E-golf had an updated battery in 2017, that increased the capacity by 50%. The 2014 version was sold with 200km (125mi) range, but the real range was closer to 125km (75mi). The 2017 version was sold with a 300km (185mi) range, but 190km (115mi) real range.
The range of both depend on if you drive in cold weather and if you drive on a highway. I bought and E-golf in 2017 that I drove long distance once on the highway when it was -20C (-4F). I then got around one hour of driving and one hour of charging... Do not recommend!
If you want more stats about the cars, this webpage is great:
Had it for just over a year, but so far happy with the Renault Megane e-Tech[1]. It has a kerb weight of around 1700kg, of which 400kg is the battery[2].
It's smaller than the ID.4 so fits in our small garage, great turning radius which is nice in the city, and physical buttons for the most important stuff like climate and media. It can tow up to 900kg and supports a roof rack.
Here in Norway they haven't been very aggressive with the advertisements, which I guess "helps".
Unlike the Kia Nero EV and Hyundai Kona, two similar competitors, the Megane e-Tech was designed to be 100% BEV from the start, which I think is advantageous for an EV.
I think the flat front is mostly design language to make the car seem more “masculine” or SUVish, and is even more noticeable because of the shorter hood on EVs.
The weight is just a consequence of current battery technology- no way to get that down much without hurting the range.
Look at Aptera motors for an ultralight efficient EV.
Carmakers have been tending towards SUV and crossover designs because they make more money on them. The ID.4 is a crossover, basically an SUV on a car frame rather than a truck frame. I too wish they made more compact cars, but it seems that they would rather produce what is more profitable for them rather than what customers want.
I’m not really disagreeing with your broader point, but consumer demand has been tracking toward trucks and SUVs for quite a while now. I would imagine there is a bit of a “tail wagging the dog” situation there, and it’s also probably relevant that the average age of a new car buyer has been rising as wealth distribution has skewed further upward.
But that’s great news, if there’s truly a gap in the famously difficult automotive market, maybe a scrappy new player can break through with a simple, small sedan—one that can be made cheaply, and sold affordably—and then their supply chain can be forced into a series of buy outs and hostile takeovers, creating the next generation of wealthy donors to political action groups. It’s the ciiiirrcle of liiiife etc..
I think part of the issue is that the people who want simple non-SUVs are the people who mostly buy used cars.
The majority of people buy their cars used, but the car makers make the cars they can sell to the minority who buy new cars - and they have very different tastes. New car buyers like gadgets and they like SUVs.
Crossovers in that zone are a pretty reasonable compromise of cost, handling, safety, and ergonomics. They have essentially replaced station wagons and are mostly built the same way, just a little taller.
I agree that they have replaced station wagons but as a station wagon owner they aren't really even close to interchangeable. I don't know why they replaced them.
Compare my Mazda 6 wagon to the Mazda CX-9 crossover. My wagon is almost 25% more fuel efficient (7L/100km vs 9L/100km) but also has MUCH more space. Minimum cargo space of 506L vs 230L. Maximum cargo space of 1648L vs 810L. It has a shorter wheelbase and smaller turning radius. It does have worse towing 550kg vs 750kg but I almost never see anyone towing anything.
Looking at the current Mazda lineup the replacement for the Mazda6 (29 mpg) is the CX-50 which adds AWD and gets 28 mpg or 38 mpg for the hybrid. I was suprised the Mazda6 would have so much more cargo area but in the spec sheet it lists 22 ft vs 31 for the CX-50. So to me the CX-50 looks like more capacity in about the same physical and carbon footprint, what am I missing here?
In Toyota's lineup the RAV4 is basically a tall Camry, and in Subaru's lineup the Outback kind of just got a bit taller and reclassified as a crossover alternative to the Legacy. Of course these companies all have larger and smaller options, but in general it seems like the adoption of larger vehicles is not because smaller ones aren't available, it's because for various reasons customers want to buy them. In any case worrying about exactly what vehicle mix is selling to me feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I don't disagree, but I just prefer compact cars. If I had to buy a new vehicle and there were no compacts available, I'd go for a crossover, but I won't like it.
I prefer to drive smaller cars but with stroller, kids' car seats, etc there are some physical constraints on getting everything to fit in a reasonable way.
Gasoline has 100x more energy density per kg than Lithium batteries. As you said EVs are 3x more efficient so per kg dofference is 33x. Electic motors are much more compact and lighter than ICEs but not enough to close the 33x gap for the same weight. Thus for a similar range EVs need to be heavier.
My ICE car is 1300kg and it can drive ~1000km with a full tank of 62 liters.
> Gasoline has 100x more energy density per kg than Lithium batteries.
This is true and also misleading since much more of the energy stored in gasoline is unavailable for conversion to work relative to an electrical battery. Additionally, an electrical battery can absorb some of the vehicle's kinetic energy, which a vehicle with only an ICE cannot do.
That table says that 122kwh is only 4 gallons of gasoline. Most ICE cars that compare to an ev with a 122 kWh battery size hold 20 gallons of more.
So still 5x energy density in the ICE vehicle
Or am missing something?
Sorry for unclarity. I wasn't comparing the weight if the total car in EV or ICE scenario. It's more like 2x for a similar range I would think, because EV drivetrain is so much lighter than ICE one.
* Crash testing & crumple zones. Going up against a "half ton" MRAP in a electric velomobile is suicidal.
* Styling & consumer preferences. The SUV reigns supreme. Partly because of CAFE's perverse incentives.
* CAFE isn't directly forcing anyone to optimize EVs, and "watt hours per mile" is not widely demanded by consumers, because EV charging is ~40% the cost of gas per mile and because EVs are still exclusively a mid to upmarket thing. Everybody penny pinching is driving a 2003 Toyota with >100k miles which has appreciated in value over the past five years.
The trend to SUVs also exists in countries where SUVs aren't exempt from stuff similar to CAFE. Consumers overwhelmingly prefer SUVs and large, heavy vehicles. They're the single most popular segment of cars in essentially any market that can afford them.
I wish it weren't so, but the revealed preference of the median car buyer is to simply buy as much car by the ton as they can afford.
The American car industry largely created, popularized, and continues to heavily promote the concept of huge SUVs and impractically huge pickups with high ground clearance, high weight, tall hoods and tall beds. It's almost synonymous with our national identity, in the modern automotive era.
And that domestic market seeking overseas sales is shaped by CAFE, which in combination with manufacturing conditions has almost prohibited them from making the sort of small
pickup trucks favored by the entire world before CAFE, and which remains common in the rest of the world. Sedans, minivans, even the tradesman's current best option in light commercial vans, are barely produced domestically anymore in comparison to the Lifestyle Truck, a thing which we gradually invented sometimes between 1980 and 2010 out of enclosure of small pickups, then the Soccer Mom replacing the minivan with a more vertically inclined Isuzu, then the Army HMMWV, then the F-150 and everything else just inflating in size annually.
CAFE's min-max optimization is why every marketing executive in the sector wants you to adopt an offroading hobby. That seeps out. Cultural export.
It seems hard to differntiate between chicken and the egg here. Do consumers really prefer big vehicles outright? Or do they prefer them based on the marketing of those vehicles as 'safer' or 'capable' or whatever? We know margins are higher on larger cars, so there is an incentive even in non-CAFE areas.
Part of it feels like an arms race played out on the road as well. I finally had to buy a new[er] car after my 2001 Volvo wagon died. Modern cars are massive, heavy, and have shit visibility. They also have surprisingly similar or even smaller interior volumes compared to similar exterior sozed cars of 15+ years ago. But let me tell you, test driving even like a modern RAV4 (not a huge car by modern standards) made me feel like a prince on the road compared to my low ride wagon. Didnt feel like every other car on the road could run me over without noticing either.
Seems like cars will just keep growing til they hit the limit of roads, parking lots, and garages?
Because companies that aren’t Tesla, Lucid, or some Chinese companies jerry rig batteries into existing designs with hardpoints for an IC engine, the tall hood for radiators and pedestrian collision requirements for a big IC engine block, 20000 microcontrollers from 50 different suppliers, etc
weight is somewhat compensated by recuperation and a consequence of necessary battery weight for desired capacity / travel reach.
and while wind resistance depends on shape and "front area", front area actually is the cross section surface, the silhouette if you wish, as seen from back or front.
thus a teardrop like shape has a large flat part at the front but still it has near perfect, lowest resistance.
EVs reduce their front silhouette ("area") with a narrower cabin, low overall height,
cameras as mirrors on vans.
EV Battery packs are very heavy and dense. The ID4 has an aerodynamic Cd score of 0.28 - Mach-E has a Cd of 0.29 and Model Y has a Cd of 0.23, so its in the middle of the pack.
I think the reason electric aircraft are struggling is because of physics. Gasoline has far more gravimetric energy density than lithium ion batteries. And weight matters a lot more for flying than driving. One of the benefits of gasoline is you burn it off while flying, which makes the plane lighter, which increases the range. This is not a negligible effect - pilots are taught to take this into effect when planning flights. It's calculated by all commercial airlines.
Now on top of that add that it costs significantly more and you have what is, by at least the metric above, an objectively worse product for a higher price. Yes, there are other advantages but limited range is a much bigger deal for flying than it is for driving.
There's also safety. Planes can take off at a higher maximum weight than that at which they can safely land. In an emergency shortly after takeoff (when most emergencies occur), fuel may have to be dumped to reduce landing weight. So that's a double-whammy for battery-electric planes; they can't safely take off over their landing weight, which limits their already-short range.
I am pretty sure, that “lightweight” and “family” are not easy to combine unless you’re family of three without the need for a luggage.
Those new electric cars need big batteries just to be somehow usable. Recently consumed 35 kWh for 65 miles ride on model Y with trailer in cold weather. That makes <150 miles total winter range with trailer with fully charged battery.
Most petrol family cars are less than 1500 kg in Europe. Americans are used to overweight cars and that's spreading to here too. Though it's often a problem since most city parking spots are smaller than huge cars like Tesla model Y.
Based on your experience? My parents use their Golf 7 to drive down south to Italy from Germany every other year. Two adults, two teenagers, and one small dog fit in better than into my dad's late 2000s Mercedes S class
Half of Germany drove to Italy with their VW Beetles back then. It’s a traditional thing. However there are some neighborhoods where with second child family buys their Mercedes V class or VW T6. I prefer those over the ones having Ford Fiesta as a family car.
> Can someone tell me why all those new electric cars are so poorly designed in terms of size and weight? Most of them weight over 2t and have a large frontal area (VW ID.4 is the prime example). I just want an economical family vehicle (lightweight, hatchback design) and there aren't that many options.
If you don't need anything right now, don't feel any pressure to go out and buy something new. If you do, get whatever works for you, even if that is an ICE vehicle. Don't feel bad; you're doing what is best for your family.
But know that the "future" in EVs is likely closer than you think. Look at the Canoo vehicles - I'm not saying buy one, just look at it and think about the design. Look at the VW ID.Buzz. Again, don't buy one (it's an overpriced usability mess), just look at it and think about the design. You know what is most interesting about it? The length is a foot to a foot and a half less than the existing minivans on the market, but it has more interior room. That is interesting, isn't it?
Well, the Ford CEO said this in the Q2 2024 investor call [1]:
> ...Now when people hear about affordability and they think about small and unaffordable, I'd like to address that now. We are designing a super-efficient platform, leveraging innovation across our product development, supply chain, and manufacturing teams. With no engine or drivetrain, a smaller vehicle can have a much roomier package, actually the interior package of a class above with a small silhouette. That's a big advantage for customers versus ICE. And we're focusing on very differentiated vehicles priced under $40,000 or even $30,000.
And then in the Q3 2024 investor call [2]:
> we're deep into the design and engineering of our next-generation vehicles. Boy! are we excited about these coming out in the next few years. In 40 years in the industry, I've seen a lot of game-changer products, but the mid-sized electric pickup designed by our California team has got to be one of the most exciting. It's incredible package and consumer technology for a segment we know well. It matches the cost structure of any Chinese auto manufacturer building in Mexico in the future. How do we know that? Because 60% of the [BOM] (ph) has already been quoted.
So, this pickup is the first one to come out, and that's not what you are looking for. But the EVs that come after it may be exactly what you are looking for. And of course Ford is not going to be alone. All the car companies are going to be working from this point of view. So, can you wait 4-5 years for the EV that actually works for what you need? Perhaps your next ICE car is your last ICE car?
