I just designed the perfect real-world EV. Tell me I'm wrong.

I just designed the perfect mainstream EV - it’s perfect - and nobody’s making it. Yet. (It’s more of a feasibility study, really.) This is a massive automotive industry opportunity.

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

I remain the ultimate EV skeptic. I don’t worship at the church of Electric Jesus. Never will. And yet I’ve been driving a Hyundai Kona Electric for about 6000km now. And I do enjoy driving it. I love not going to the filling station - nostalgia factor there: -273 degrees C, on a warm day. I love the way that Kona EV gets off the mark - silent but deadly. Peak torque at zero rpm. Awesome. And I’ve never needed it to take me more than 450 kilometres in a day. It’s good on the highway, too. When I have occasionally run it down to under 10 per cent remaining, it still charges up overnight on a single-phase 240-volt, 32-amp charger at home. (That’s like maxxed-out at-home charging - 7.7 kilowatts. Set and forget, there - also brilliant.) I like not contributing to air pollution in our cities. (At least in that car - in the other two big diesel tanks in the driveway … call me a hypocrite on that.) And energy security for Shitsville - so important. [MALS] EVs certainly have a niche carved out and well defined there, even though the grid remains properly filthy. But there is an EV elephant in this room: the fundamental impediment to mainstream adoption of EVs is price. The mighty Kona Electric is $25,000 more than its petrol counterpart. Like mid-$40s drive-away for the 1.6 Turbo Highlander. About $70,000 for the EV. That’s a massive monetary hit. The petrol MG ZS is $17,000 cheaper than the EV. Only a proper EV zealot with cash to burn can justify this, or perhaps a business looking to wear its green credentials on its sleeve. And, look, there’s nothing wrong with doing that - economic rationalism is not a prerequisite for owning a vehicle. I’m just saying economic irrationalism limits the number of EV sales that can be made, ultimately. Look at the opportunity cost: What else could you do with the $17-25 grand? Most people would say: Plenty. The only two ways to make this work on the corporate side are to charge a bomb and just trickle EVs through to receptive, wealthy zealots and let market forces work it out, or petition the government to subsidise EVs so they can go mainstream. What if there were a better EV? What if the car industry took its head out of its arse and instead made the EV that people actually need, with a balance sheet that balanced? (As opposed to the zealot-magnet.) I’m talking about a new EV segment: the shitbox EV. A fairly nasty second car. A runaround with minimal features, and not much range. Just right for average driving in built-up areas, a kid-school delivery and recovery device, right at home at the commuter car park or the local shopping centre. A device with roughly the raw sex appeal of a sandwich press. A device for which the primary purpose is simply to take the load off your nice, liquid-fuelled car. I actually think this is economically rational already - even though no carmaker is apparently doing it.