Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
bruce511
dhosek
What’s interesting is that while most cars imported into Mexico (except for those from the NAFTA region) face stiff tariffs or outright bans (if you move to Mexico from the US you can only bring your car if it was manufactured in Mexico/Canada/US, other cars are not allowed at all), but electric cars have no tariff at all which means that, e.g., Chinese EVs are widely available there. The BYD Seal sells for MXN888000 in its AWD/big battery configuration which translates to USD51,184¹ which is comparable to the Tesla Model 3 price in Mexico (and a bit lower than the equivalent price in the US). Mexico is going at the EV transition with a two-pronged strategy: Building a domestic industry and encouraging imports at the same time. This seems to be the exact opposite of the US strategy.
⸻
1. Worth noting two key differences between the Mexican and American car buying experience: First, prices are fixed. There’s none of this negotiating with the dealer about the price or upselling you on undercoating stuff. You can look on the website and know what the price is. Second, instead of sales tax, Mexico uses VAT to achieve the same purpose. As a result, the price you see for a product is going to be the actual price you pay walking out the door and not the price before sales tax (at my current residence, the total sales tax is currently 10%). As a consequence, some things that might appear to be slightly more expensive in Mexico, depending on where you live, may actually be slightly cheaper.
jackb4040
The US didn't go from #1 in global auto manufacturing to nearing extinction on accident. The companies shifted production abroad because they didn't want to pay for US labor. We can't just pray for "development" to spark a chain reaction that gets us back on track - we were the most developed and consciously chose to squander that advantage.
Onshoring can be done, but it will have a real cost someone will have to bear. The industry would prefer consumers just pay twice as much for cars, meanwhile consumers are at a breaking point like they've never felt. In the meantime there's a stalemate and nobody can move, as the decline continues.
petesergeant
> The companies shifted production abroad because they didn't want to pay for US labor
Realistically it’s the consumers who didn’t want to pay for it
intended
Customers will always aim for the best quality/price combination that they can get though.
steveBK123
Also US cars were genuinely horrendous in the 80s-90s in terms of build quality & reliability vs same price or cheaper Japanese equivalents.
It's only rather recent that all the big name car makes from US/Europe/Japan/Korea are pretty good & reliable. There were huge differences 30-40 years ago.
robomartin
> The companies shifted production abroad because they didn't want to pay for US labor.
That's not true. Reality is far more nuanced than that. Sadly, it is the equivalent of a bunch of Dodo birds falling off a cliff. And this applies to every industry, not just automobiles.
The simplified version goes something like this:
Three companies manufacture forks and knives in the US. They share the market equally. Each has 1/3 market share.
One of them decides they can be clever, manufacture in China, reduce the price of their products and get more than 1/3 share.
Their plan succeeds. Their market share goes up to 1/2 and the other two companies down to 1/4 each
Try as they might to compete, they cannot, the cost basis in the US is higher.
One of them decides "We can be just as clever" and they start manufacturing in China.
Now two of the companies, on account of their lower prices, have 2/5 of the market each. The third company is down to 1/5 share.
The last company has no choice at all, they have to manufacture in China or shut their doors.
With all three companies manufacturing in China, we are now back to each having 1/3 of the market again. Except that, due to the price war, they are now selling the same product they were selling before the transition for half the price. And, of course, their margins are no better, maybe even worse.
And now, the grand finale: The industrial development all three companies effectively funded in China has taught one or more factories how to make these products. Now the Chinese companies enter the market directly, compete with their customers and drop the prices even more. All three companies go out of business. One of the companies is acquired in bankruptcy by one of the Chinese factories who sell the same product for less under the same brand.
Ironically, the reason (one of them) consumers are at the breaking point is because this chain reaction --which required consumers to prefer cheaper goods from abroad-- managed to destroy untold number of industries everywhere. This destroyed jobs by the millions. And here we are.
In some ways this is no different from the race for higher minimum wage. The huge sucking sound you are hearing are the millions of jobs that are being lost because of it.
pjc50
.. and the consumers get cheaper goods.
This debate is as old as Adam Smith, or older. I think the examples he used were centered around textiles? Everyone was afraid of the new job-destroying looms.
> This destroyed jobs by the millions. And here we are.
US unemployment has been about 5% for a while. If you look back on the graph: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une... , there are two big outliers. One is the business cycle disaster of 2008, which blew up the property market. One is COVID.
Unemployment is basically a managed number. It can't go too far below 4% before inflation kicks in, which everyone absolutely hates, so interest rates are raised to reduce investment and consumption and thereby increase unemployment and reduce wage pressure. All of this is orthodox economics.
intended
How is this not a longer way of saying companies didn’t want to pay for American labour?
NotGMan
Tarfis seem to be the only way out.
Everyone laughed when Trump did it, now EU is doing the same.
NuclearPM
By accident. (Good)
On purpose. (Good)
An accident. (Good)
On accident. (Bad)
hmm37
The tariff route is what happened in the 1970s under the "chicken tax", which still exists today to protect the US light truck industry, and is pretty much the reason why SUVs reign supreme in the US market. SUVs are classified as "light trucks", which has caused a Galapagozation of the US car industry/market.
GenerWork
I see this take on SUVs all the time, and I can't help but think it's wrong. Americans just like bigger vehicles and will downsize if gas gets too expensive. There's a reason almost all electric car companies start off with a CUV/SUV/truck, and it's not because they're allergic to sedans or coupes.
adjejmxbdjdn
- Tesla, the most prominent and successful EV company, didn’t start with a truck.
- Neither did all the attempts at EVs from other competitors in the 2010s, like the GM Bolt/Volt or the Nissan Leaf.
- But you’re not wrong, that today EV companies usually start with SUVs/CUVs, but that’s because a larger chassis makes it easier to include a large enough battery.
pjc50
The SUV branding is ridiculous. The Fiat 600 brands itself as "SUV" to appeal to this sector. It's basically a hatchback with a slightly elevated driving position. In a few years all cars will be called "SUV", and then sub-distinctions like "compact SUV" and "hatchback SUV" will be re-introduced.
beowulfey
There is a market for smaller cars and trucks but its probably smaller than for other countries. We don't have the smaller roads/spaces associated with e.g. Europe. But for sure I would buy small cars or trucks first any day compared to the monsters on the road; there are few options though.
yonaguska
Idk if I'd say that Americans like bigger vehicles. There are just a lot of incentives that push us that way.
pragma_x
There may be another option.
Consider Japan's Kei car initiative, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car#Description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car#Taxation_and_insurance
One route is to provide incentives, if not regulations, to force innovation on US automakers. The goal would be to yield products that are head-to-head competitive with imports.
> It seems to me though that the current strategy seems to be very short term thinking - trying to just hold back the tide.
I'm seeing that too, but from a different angle. The era of big trucks seems to be as much an effort to extract cash from the economy as it is taking advantage of a peculiar set of EPA and DOT regulations. Basically, "gettin' in while the gettin's good." It's not a long-term strategy because, at some point, people can't afford these behemoths and will go for the used car market next for cheaper goods. EVs may get caught up in that too, considering that they're aimed squarely at the sub-luxury tier and above. As we have no good cheap EV options at the moment, I think it's the same story.
HWR_14
The main difference between a car like this and a kei car is the ability to drive it, at least for a short while, on the expressway. If this could go a couple miles at 45 or 50 mph that would work in lot more situations where two neighborhoods or urban areas are connected by a short stretch of highway.
mc3301
Kei cars can comfortably go up to about 60mph. Not great for an 8 hour drive, but I regularly do 3-hour-drives with a loaded kei-van. Yep, same 660cc three-cylinder engine that those kei-trucks have. It'll hit 70mph, but not comfortably. 50mph is easy.
And on the highway, I see tons of other kei cars, too. Light weight class cars even get a toll discount!
yellowapple
> The Ford CEO is not wrong. Allowing foreign imports into the country at prices far below what US producers are able to make will decimate the local car industry in the US.
The local car industry in the US is doing that to itself by dragging its feet on EVs in the US market even when the very same companies are selling EVs outside of the US. Ford, for example, has an EV Bronco that's inexplicably only available in China; that'd sell like gangbusters here in the US, but Ford won't sell it here because reasons.
In that sense, the Ford CEO is about as dead-wrong as it gets. His company needs to either actually sell competitive products or else move out of the way for other companies to do so. His demands to keep foreign competitors out of the very US market in which his company refuses to offer products are downright insultingly greedy.
brianfryer
I’m interested in understanding more about what gives you the impression “that [an EV Bronco would] sell like gangbusters here in the US”.
yellowapple
I see non-EV Broncos everywhere here in Reno, and I also see EVs everywhere here in Reno. I would therefore expect to see EV Broncos everywhere here in Reno if they existed in the US market.
I also in particular see Cybertrucks and Rivian R1Ts everywhere here in Reno, so the very specific demand for electric pickup trucks clearly exists.
pragma_x
Not GP, but for starters, the MSRP for that car in China is $32k.
https://www.carsdb.com/en/news/1476
I get that's an apples-to-oranges comparison, considering that labor and material costs (not to mention subsidies and regulations) are probably not the same. But even at $40k, it would be cost-competitive with other EVs if nothing else.
yibg
Isn’t there a e) have investment at the federal level in R&D, specifically for industries that matter (economy, national security etc)? For automotive, China didn’t become the EV leader by accident. It was a deliberate national strategy, with funding to back it up. Yes there is cheaper labor, different regulations etc. But also in no small part to federal funding, investment in R&D etc. why are we surprised then that the US is in general falling behind?
The US could invest more in battery tech, manufacturing automation, robotics etc. This both lowers cost and increases product competitiveness.
tzs
> The US could invest more in battery tech, manufacturing automation, robotics etc
The US is investing in batteries. Domestic production has increased rapidly over the last couple of years and is continuing to do so. The US can now produce domestically all of its battery needs for grid storage, for example.
This is due to government incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.
xbmcuser
There should be a time limit to protectionism and a scale where tariffs on imports come down overtime. Otherwise you will get what you currently have in the US ie huge cars that cost a lot of money to make and run. US supposedly the free economy is the country where almost every industry is an entrenched virtual monopoly or a duopoly and with it's political finance system they are eating into every industry.
program_whiz
Its an inevitable state of any market system (especially if regulated). Eventually it will become more profitable to use the gains of capital to buy protection from regulators, instead of investing in ever smaller business improvements. Using money to defeat competition is ultimately inefficient and generates lower returns for investment. Unless regulators are totally insulated from the market, they will have a stake in selecting winners and will eventually construct moats that others can't cross, as that provides the highest returns to capital, and the greatest rewards to regulators.
Monopoly is the most market-efficient vehicle to deliver returns to capital, and the most natural state of the market; one player using advantages and gains eventually destroys all opponents. Smaller players can never gain a foothold due to the incumbents being so efficient and far ahead, and it makes more sense to merge with the front-runner, allies, or be destroyed (hence the competitor pool keeps shrinking).
These are features of the system that naturally emerge without counterveiling forces.
For example, AI companies will shortly find its cheaper to just get the government to constrain their competition. The alternative is many companies spending trillions to eek out profits, a poor state to be in. Regulators want money and power, so its in their interest to create this protected state, as the "free and open market" isn't buying elections or vacation homes. And of course, any unprotected competitors left behind will die, consolidate, or sell to the victors; so we will eventually have a "winner takes all" system where one or two big players dominate. Any startups will either be quickly destroyed as people ask "why use a worse product", or will sell to the monopoly when they realize they can't afford to spend $1T training models and building data centers, and complying with all the regulations.
My point is that protectionism (in any form) isn't something to bring down over time to encourage competition -- the system can't naturally function that way, as it would require each player to go against their own interests. Instead, protectionism is a natural ever-increasing good that will be cultivated for the controlling capital and regulators in the system. We only see the "free market" operations during a time before market / regulator capture, as that's the time when there aren't yet dominant players who can guarantee power and money to the regulators, and there isn't enough consolidation of capital to immediately destroy all competition, but its an unstable market state.
01100011
Why is decimating our local car industry a problem? Why not build something else with the resources if cars are now a cheap commodity?
GLGirty
This reminds me of a quote from Peter Schiff, circa 2008 housing crash. To paraphrase,
“too-big-to-fail eventually becomes too-big-to keep alive"
hnav
historically car manufacturing gets redirected into defense for wartime though it's unclear how that would pan out with today's factory specialization
bruce511
Historically being WW2. I'm not sure they've contributed much to the "war effort" since then.
A legacy of WW2 was the explosion of the whole defence industry. While a lot of the civilian factories got repurposed in WW2 to build trucks and planes and ships, the tech in all that stuff was very basic. For example the aircraft carrier Yorktown was "fixed" (at least good enough for the Midway battle) in 3 days. I somehow doubt a modern carrier could do that, simply because of the tech required. The US built 150 more carriers in the next 3 years.
The defense industry today gets a trillion $ a year. There's no civilian ship-building to speak of, and military vehicles are now highly specialized.
So why keep Ford et al afloat? Politically it's sold as "national security." In reality it's like more "they didn't die on my watch." And of course, having the ability to make local affects the supply chain. [1]
For example if China invades Taiwan, the US loses pretty much all electronics- especially PCs and Phones. That's a lot of leverage for a foreign country to have.
[1] US cars aren't really local - that's a fiction exposed by the proposed tarif on "car parts", which the industry squashed. In reality car parts are made all over the place (including the US) , and then assembled in the US (or anywhere else.)
fsuts
Mercedes Benz and other car companies in Europe are going into defence directly as EU is investing more so any company in the engineering space see potential new market growth
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/11/mercedes-benz-anti-drone-veh...
ButterWashed
You can't really assume the prices will stay low forever and removing local competition exposes you to supply chain issues.
toast0
Our local car industry is tightly related to our local military vehicle industry.
Should we get into a big war, we'll likely need mass production of military vehicles and having mass production of consumer vehicles is a good start.
bayarearefugee
> Should we get into a big war, we'll likely need mass production of military vehicles and having mass production of consumer vehicles is a good start.
And all those military vehicles we build will be destroyed by tiny fpv drones that cost a tiny percent of what the vehicles cost.
Why do people cling to this WW II era idea that we need car factories in case we go to war?
undefined
gwbas1c
> It remains to be seen whether the Olinia One will face similar pushback from the U.S. once it goes on sale.
> can travel up to 125 kilometers (77 miles) on a single charge
The US market generally rejects small-range EVs, except in very niche markets. In order to succeed in the US, it will need roughly 3-4x the range. In order for this to succeed in Mexico, their market will need different driving habits than the typical American.
(I know this as a former 2014 Leaf lessee. Short-range EVs only make sense when they are the only option in my price range, and I really, really want to drive an EV. Maybe the typical Mexican rarely drives far away from home? Or maybe this is for a niche of Mexicans who really, really want an EV and will tolerate a short range?)
Rotdhizon
I know absolutely nothing about Mexico in terms of geography or driving so I wonder how feasible an EV that you presumably constantly have to charge is going to fare. In the US, a range of 77 miles is a complete non starter. You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
It's interesting that info about the car is only half the article. The other half is a commentary on how US politicians are desperately trying to keep foreign EVs out of the country, lest it hurt corporate profits.
apparent
> In the US, a range of 77 miles is a complete non starter. You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
It's true that some people drive more than 77 miles per day. But a pretty big chunk of people never do, except road trips/vacations. It could easily be worth it to buy a cheap EV for everyday use and then rent a vehicle for long trips.
degenerate
exactly - the rejection of short range EVs was when they cost as much as a normal car
if the short range EV is now much cheaper, people will adapt to the restriction because it's an affordable option
gwbas1c
(2014 Leaf leaseholder here)
At the time we were a 2-car household and used the gas car for longer trips. That being said, there were a few times we had to scramble:
Once, when it was very cold my wife and I both needed to drive a long distance. I took the Leaf because I had access to a charger.
On our last year of the lease we ended up having to move 90 miles away. When we bought the Leaf, we never planned on driving that far. Due to circumstances, I had to make multiple 90-mile trips in the Leaf.
---
Case in point: I now only recommend that class of Leaf to people who need a 3rd car for a teenager and no intention of moving.
Ekaros
It is weird point to be in. Almost a daily use of that range or significant part of it. As with less than daily use and short distances fuel is lot less critical. I am use case of going to shops a few times a week. Savings on fuel is not big thing as there isn't much used.
And then when I actually need to travel longer distances the range is much more important.
So EV would need to be very cheap to start making sense overall.
undefined
floxy
Or you own more than vehicle. Plenty of families own multiple vehicles, and they don't all need to have tons of range.
loloquwowndueo
> I know absolutely nothing about Mexico in terms of geography or driving so I wonder how feasible an EV that you presumably constantly have to charge is going to fare.
Hey at least you admitted that upfront. Average driving speed in Mexico City is 15 km/h so one would have to spend 8h driving to deplete the battery in a day. Typical commutes are perhaps 1h one-way but again, distance wise probably only about 40 km both ways. So this 125km range easily covers it for most people.
I think energy cost is more of an issue for most. electricity is expensive in Mexico City especially compared to base salaries. And electrical infrastructure was never built to handle high power consumption. Most apartments have a single 30A breaker for the entire house. Most heating is done by gas and air conditioning is not widely used. For most people charging speed will likely be limited to about 10A at 120V.
floxy
>charge it every single day.
That's pretty much standard operating procedure for any EV. That's one of the perks of owning an EV. Plug it in when you get home from work, and have a full "tank" every morning. Plus you get the cabin preheating using the wall electricity.
phildenhoff
If you have a charger at home, or at work, why does it matter if you have to charge it daily or weekly? Yes, for some lifestyles, range matters. For others, a 125 km range is perfectly acceptable
HeyLaughingBoy
For a significant segment of the US population, that thing wouldn't get them to work and back, so they'd have to charge it both at home and at work. And in many cases, forget running any errands, picking up kids from daycare, etc.
And minimum speed on US interstates is typically 40mph, so that reduces its usability even more.
thelastgallon
> You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.
Charging is not a problem when a car is stationary. It is parked next to a building, building usually has electricity (unless you are Amish).
I don't know why most people don't understand electricity is available everywhere, but petrol is only available at gas stations. You have to somewhere to pump gas, a major inconvenience.
thelastgallon
28% of trips are under a mile, 52% under three, 64% under five, 79% under ten, 93% under twenty-five, and 98% under 50 miles.
gwbas1c
This is the kind of misleading fact that motivated me to make my post. (Former 2014 Leaf leaseholder.)
Americans buy the car for the 1% trips. In my case, most of my car trips are short, but most of my milage is from long-range trips.
What's more informative is this post that explains Mexican driving behavior: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48634740
fajmccain
This new EV is to replace motorcycles and scooters that are ubiquitous in mexico. If it succeeds in getting 100k people off of motorcycles it will have the side benefit of reducing healthcare costs treating motorcycle accidents.
moralestapia
People don't choose motorcycles and scooters because they like them, it's because they're cheaper than cars.
This EV is much more expensive than a motorcycle or a scooter, so on that regard it is DOA.
CalRobert
"The car is designed for urban settings and has a top speed of 50 kilometers (31 miles) per hour."
I don't think range will be an issue at that speed tbh.
Cool little transport but not really a "car" in the way we think of them.
dieselgate
> The car is designed for urban settings
Huh, the speed limit is odd because in my urban/city driving in the western US (San Diego, LA, SF, Portland and Seattle) all major cities still basically necessitate non-zero highway driving. Even mopeds (and bicycles) can pretty easily exceed 31 mph.
I've spent about 2 months total in Mexico City and there are still in-city areas where it'd be common to exceed 31 mph. The main rate limiter being traffic...
Anyway not to pooh-pooh the idea too much, I am sure there are plenty of use cases but maybe enabling a top speed of 55 mph would increase utility IMO
undefined
fluoridation
How many people do you know who can "easily" exceed 50 km/h on a bicycle?
catlikesshrimp
An amusing coincidence: the maximum allowed speed in Nicaragua is 50 km/h If This wasn't about to countries in America, I would suspect something technical behind those decisions. The only thing I can think of is the loss of energy efficiency when driving over 60km/h
As with everything, finding an official announcement of something in Nicaragua might be horrible, so have this instead https://ni.usembassy.gov/message-for-u-s-citizens-new-speed-...
pjc50
This car is explicitly intended as a taxi. If - and it's a big if - the taxi can charge while waiting for jobs, that's going to be fine.
rsynnott
Oh, huh, yeah, would have been helpful if the article mentioned that. Range is probably _fine_ in that case.
4MOAisgoodenuf
The limits on range and speed (reported 50kph) would make it a horrible deal for the average American.
150k pesos (~$8.6k) for a brand new wheelchair-accessible city van seems like a killer deal in the Mexican market. That would come on the market for less than a used air-cooled VW beetle (ended production in Mexico in 2003)
wqaatwt
Can’t you get a much better used car for that? that’s probably one of the reasons why there is not much demand for basic cheap cars with no features in Western countries at least. Modern cars are much more reliable and last longer than they used to several decades ago and stripped down budget models can’t compete with that.
FlyingSnake
> can travel up to 125 kilometers (77 miles) on a single charge
This would be a big hit in European cities. I own VW e-Up! and it's a perfect EU city car. With it's 375KM range, I rarely charge it more than once a month.
friarpuck
I was thinking it would make a good candidate for city taxis and other such urban uses
craftkiller
NYC taxis drive an average of 180 miles per shift[0] so they'd need to triple the range or have some sort of system where they can swap their depleted taxi for a freshly-charged one mid-shift.
alemanek
Yeah taxis in the capital and small people movers to go from hotel to beach is where these will shine. EVs are especially well suited to stop and go traffic as well.
People are so caught up trying to solve every use case at once. Dropping pollution caused by old taxis in city centers will be a big win for Mexico if they can hit their price point. At the price they are quoting fleet operators can buy 2 and have their drivers swap out mid-day during their lunch.
rsynnott
> The US market generally rejects small-range EVs, except in very niche markets. In order to succeed in the US, it will need roughly 3-4x the range
I mean, I assume it is not the case that literally all Americans regularly make long journeys. There probably is a market.
> I know this as a former 2014 Leaf lessee.
That was a lot more expensive than this.
The Dacia Spring has a range of a little less than twice these, and I see a good few of those around. Those cost about 15k EUR (17k USD). I'd definitely buy that there is at least _some_ market for something half the cost and half the range.
lentil_soup
I think people are misunderstanding. This is a car for Mexico, nothing to do with the US.
On the website it says it's a car "designed in Mexico for Mexico" https://www.olinia.auto/
dotcoma
Here is the company's website:
sct202
It makes a lot more sense seeing the image where they place it between a car and rickshaw/tuktuk
initramfs
"The car’s unvieling comes as some countries around the world continue to push EV adoption with better and more affordable options. The U.S., however, has taken the opposite track."
Lol, so true. I honestly don't mind waiting for an electric car since I hope to get more mileage out of my current one. If it lasts 10 more years, all the better.
The cars available then should be far better (other than new things I might not want- e.g. more automation).
725686
There is no way Olina will make it to market. It is another of the demagogic populist government's projects.
derelicta
Personally, I'm very happy about the increasingly competitive EV market. Hopefully they will start exporting those to the British market. Don't we all love cheap things?
marinhero
Hoping this brings EV infrastructure up in the country. A road trip is still quite an ordeal due to the lack of fast chargers in highways and maybe that's why the range on the first version of Olena is low, as it's aimed to provide "ultra mobility" within cities and not outside of it but still, glad to see the MX government invest into renewable technology.
mekdoonggi
Would this be enough range for a typical bit of driving in CDMX? Seems like a painful road trip car, but you don't need so much range for a city car.
timbit42
I hope we don't see these on any highways. They can only do 50 kph.
elgertam
My first thought when looking at it is that I doubt the vehicle could pass US safety regulations. Maybe I'm wrong.
rawgabbit
In Europe these kinds of vehicles are treated as micro vehicles. You don’t even need a driver licenses.
https://insideevs.com/news/401218/citroen-ami-deliveries-jun...
Symbiote
Based on similar vehicles in Europe, it's probably not a car but some sort of motorcycle.
stevenwoo
Motorcycle licensing is a bit specific( at least in California ) even if one has an automobile license, I only looked at it casually, have to buy special clothes for the training class and pass before getting learners permit to get practice for taking state test, but most of the skills learned in the training class are not applicable to this vehicle AFAIK. I would speculate it's closer to a Japanese small form factor Kei truck which are importable under certain restrictions - which must be 25 years old or older, not legal for public road use in many(most?) places due to bumper/crash testing/airbag requirements, though I've seen a couple in California in suburban/rural areas. Also see tourists driving essentially golf carts in places like San Diego on downtown streets. It seems murky to me.
thelastgallon
How foreign competition helps domestic firms: https://capx.co/how-foreign-competition-helps-domestic-firms
avocadoking
Hopefully they can also find a good balance between using cheap parts to actually being safe and comfy. The cheap EVs on the market normally lack in one of these. I have not yet found any interior shots online, did any of you?
timbit42
There are a couple of partial interior shots on their home page: https://www.olinia.auto/
rdtsc
How big is the charging infrastructure in Mexico? Or is this mainly geared for a daily commutes and charging at home?
timbit42
It's top speed is 50 kph so it's not for travelling very far or on highways.
undefined
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
The Ford CEO is not wrong. Allowing foreign imports into the country at prices far below what US producers are able to make will decimate the local car industry in the US.
There are 4 possible solutions to this problem;
a) convince Americans that it's worth paying more for a locally built product. This is the simplest approach, but there's only so much margin here that the consumer will tolerate. At the moment this gap is too large.
b) Tariff foreign imports to raise their cost. So the US consumer pays more, whether they like it or not.
c) subsidize local production out of the "national interest to support this industry" budget. This has the effect of ramping up demand, hence production, hence production being developed, and eventually getting cheaper.
d) improve US products, and prices, so that they compete in price to the import - or at least fall inside the margins such that a) becomes effective. c) can help bridge the gap here until the US companies have caught up.
In the long run, not all these strategies win. If you go the tariff route, then it's hard to undo it later. Local products fall behind, and the harder it becomes to catch up. Not impossible, but hard.
If Ford wanted tarrifs to help boost EV demand, and so allow Ford to build out infrastructure and lower costs, then fine. But it seems it's more of a short term play to just keep ICE Fords selling in the short term.
This is one of those "the internet is a fad, it'll never catch on" moments. EV's are here to stay. They're going to win. That's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention. If the question is "how to maintain the US car production" then they should be all-in on EV development now. It seems to me though that the current strategy seems to be very short term thinking - trying to just hold back the tide.