and all it took was two decades and millions of spend in anti-EV lobbying before they finally gave in, huh

(also kind of wild to me that an EV focused blog wouldn't mention this a single time since Toyota is (was?) arguably one of the staunchest and most stubborn anti-EV manufacturers out there)

Don't they have existing EV models, though?

They have large electric cars / SUVs, but not small EVs.

To be fair that's true of most manufacturers. Nobody wanted to go head to head with the Tesla M3, except Hyundai I guess but then they discontinued the Ioniq 6 IIRC.

They were neither anti-EV in the past nor will they stop producing Internal Combustion Engine vehicles in the future

based on what? there's so many sources noting their anti-EV lobbying

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/toyota-actively-lobbies-agai...

https://thedriven.io/2026/06/17/japan-car-giants-still-pushi...

https://blog.ucs.org/dave-reichmuth/why-does-toyota-oppose-c...

and here's their CEO going on a tirade about Japan's EV-adoption mandate: https://evannex.com/blogs/news/puzzled-by-toyota-ceo-s-anti-...

People who have vested interest will make such accusations.

I own EVs but I am opposed to "mandates", opposing coercion makes you anti coercion not the objective of coercion.

you read the articles, correct? the ones where they are actively supporting climate-change denying, pro-January 6th Republicans who are actively working on repealing CAFE, emissions standards, and other climate protective standards?

also the accusation of 'vested interest' is very funny to me as someone who is proverbially hiding all his liquidity under a mattress (ie bonds) until this AI bubble pops and whose sources are 1) a non-profit and 2) a Union of Concerned Scientists blog

Anyone can write a blog and they can write anything they want there. There's no more value in those links than in a Reddit comment.

Toyota isn't so much pro-internal combustion as pro-hydrogen. They bet on the wrong horse -- a really stupid horse -- and it cost them heavily.

They bet on the wrong horse -- a really stupid horse -- and it cost them heavily

How? Toyota has been the best selling automaker for the last six years straight:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...

In 2025 Toyota had record sales.

Toyota was broadly right in their approach to EVs. They were pioneers in hybrids. They had excellent hybrid cars like Prius that have been around forever. Their low end cars are extremely fuel efficient too that making them hybrid does not really offer marginal benefits.

Now most companies have written off their crazy investments in EVs. Honda has discontinued Prologue and so on.

They have also been slowly, but surely, moving all their vehicles to HEV/PHEVs (at least in Canada). For example, you can only buy a new Camry, Sienna or Rav-4 (most popular SUV in the world) in hybrid/PHEV form.

[...] since Toyota is (was?) arguably one of the staunchest and most stubborn anti-EV manufacturers out there

Wait till you hear about German car manufacturers. It's not even that long ago that e.g. Mercedes said that their target audience doesn't want EVs and they will never (!) give in to that market. Now look at them. All of them.

I am with Toyota on this one. They have done more to reduce carbon emissions than any other automaker. Hybrids, particularly plug-in hybrids, achieve most of the benefits of EVs without any of the tradeoffs, and they make far more efficient use of our limited supply of batteries.

Public policy should not insist on one technology to the exclusion of viable alternatives.

Fuel cells are stupid, though.

please, I beg of you HNers, maybe read the news instead of just going by your brand sentiment

https://www.citizen.org/article/driving-denial-how-toyotas-u...

Over the last three electoral cycles, Toyota has become the top auto industry financier of climate deniers[4]. It has helped to finance campaigns of 207 climate-denying congressional candidates, more than twice as many as Ford and nearly 50% more than General Motors, the only other automakers with federal political action committees (PACs)

[Toyota] is bankrolling an army of climate denying lawmakers and lobbying aggressively against emissions and fuel economy standards

From a few posts upstream:

and all it took was two decades and millions of spend in anti-EV lobbying before they finally gave in, huh

EVs are a stupid idea and will remain so for the foreseeable future. If you want to complain about their funding of climate deniers, complain about that. But don't criticize them for their justified dismissal of the EV mania.

I am disappointed Toyota is making EVs now. That doesn't mean I am a fan of the company; I don't even own a car.

what's your objection to EVs? what are the alternatives?

what are the alternatives?

HEV, PHEV, ICE. All are valid alternatives. Hydrogen cars are stupid though.

The hybrid already gets 55mpg and the batteries are dirt cheap.

Its actually cheaper (for me in the UK) to run a corolla hybrid than an EV as I don't have the ability to charge at home.

Not sure how you got one that gets 55mpg, mine gets 44 (47 was on the sticker). But in CA this still beats 100% EV.

55mpg is nothing. I get 100+ mpg equivalent on my massive F-150 lightning and if you include cost in the comparison it’s probably a couple of multipliers more than that.

why don't Japanese auto-makers embrace the super+ hybrid that was embraced by Chinese auto makers. having electric motors and a small engine to constantly charge / drive the motors.

Japanese auto makers are already good at hybrid power trains, small engines.

surely extended range vehicles - 1000km+/700mi+ shouldn't be limited to Chinese brands only.

why don't Japanese auto-makers embrace the super+ hybrid that was embraced by Chinese auto makers

How is that different than plug-in hybrids that toyota already have?

Chevy had that with the Volt and while it has its fans, it wasn’t exactly a hit.

Didn't Toyota bet heavily on hybrid, only to realise that no one really wants them. You have to have a specific daily drive for them to make much sense. You're carrying two engines and to fuel/power sources, so mileage is terrible on gas and battery.

Hybrids make a lot of sense, they just have a lot of the same costs as building EVs and most buyers in the US weren't willing to pay an extra $5k to increase gas mileage by 15%.

Toyota is currently seeing record sales of their hybrid models and has made multiple models hybrid-only as costs have fallen.

Plug-in hybrids with larger battery packs are a harder market fit. They cost more because of the larger battery (often more than full EV equivalents) and are not saving you any extra money unless you can plug it in daily. If you have that extra money to spend and a place to plug an, an EV will probably work fine for you and save you more money over time.

"Hybrids make a lot of sense, they just have a lot of the same costs as building EVs and most buyers in the US weren't willing to pay an extra $5k to increase gas mileage by 15%"

It's more-so the "I don't want that over-complicated crap" mentality, which is hilariously out of date. The first-gen Prius ended up being the single most reliable car ever made by almost any metric you can name.

"only to realise that no one really wants them" - 1 of every 6 new cars sold in the US are hybrids

"You have to have a specific daily drive for them to make much sense" - You'd have to have an extremely specific commute for an ICE car to potentially beat a hybrid (flat highway driving with zero traffic). Even then it's doubtful as hybrid engines can be designed to optimize more for efficiency since the electric torque can augment to make performance acceptable. Try to find an ICE car that gets better EPA ratings than equivalent hybrids.

"You're carrying two engines and to fuel/power sources, so mileage is terrible on gas and battery." - The corolla hybrid LE weighs 100lbs less than the ICE LE, in part because hybrid transmissions are quite simple in comparison to a manual/automatic required in an ICE car. In either case, hybrids have a huge advantage in the types of driving where weight matters (stop-and-go/hills) because they can reclaim that energy rather than losing it as heat.

Part of that is that we are reaching the point where a plug-in hybrid is actually more expensive to produce than an EV.

Go to Toyota's website today and you'll see that a Rav4 Plug-in Hybrid is more expensive than the bZ which is the equivalent full EV.

Going to an EREV layout (a series plug-in hybrid where the gas engine cannot drive the wheels mechanically) doesn't really save any costs directly, but allows sharing the platform between EV and EREV models.

An EREV is basically the worst of almost all worlds. It's a BEV with a motor tacked on. It ends up with a battery not a lot smaller than a pure BEV, so no real reduction in the cost of an expensive component, plus an engine and generator along with associated maintenance headaches. Not to mention the almost certain loss of cargo capacity.

I can't see myself ever wanting a Lightning EREV, for example, because of this exact issue. If I needed to tow, that would be the sole situation where it might hold enough of an advantage to matter. Aside from that, it will have (most likely) about 75% of the battery the BEV Lightning has, and it will lose the frunk, which is one of my favorite features. Plus, unlike my Lightning with it's 200K mile first required maintenance work, the EREV will probably have to be serviced every 10-20K miles. Ugh.

Range extender motors should have been easy to rent and much cheaper for long trips than a full car rental.

It would be very interesting to me to have a small sedan BEV with a rear charging port and an optional flat trailer with a large battery and room for luggage/furniture. The battery would be plugged into that car while driving. I'd want the trailer rentable from the dealer for occasional long trips. BEVs seem to have powerful motors, there must be something else with the economics why this isn't a thing.

can we get a car that doesn't self-drive or phone-home?

just replace all the gas burning, oil dripping parts

electric cars also produce way less brake dust particulates, so it's a win all around

just stop trying to make a car a smartphone

electric cars also produce way less brake dust particulates

Depends. Compared to a competent driver in a manual transmission, I doubt it. Manual transmission cars can brake with the engine instead of brakes. You also may be on the order of 1-2000+lbs lighter.

Then there's tire dust particulate considerations with the heavier EV with all that torque.

From what I've read, EVs mostly break with the engine, and recover quite some of the energy that way. To the point that I've read warnings about the breaks rusting here in south Sweden, and that you need to do some aggressive breaking now and then to clean them out.

Ugh. I saw the headline and I was hoping it would be an entry-level, low cost, highly analogue, "looks just like a normal car but electric" car.

Toyota does sell those. Just not in EU/NA. Toyota hyryder sells in India for 15k Euros.

Looks like most of the images are concepts. I wonder if the looks will change before launch? And they do say the cost is only a few k above the gas models. Something to wait and see, I guess.

Yes!

The closest thing I could find to a "normal car but electric" was the Hyundai Kona EV (I know, it's more small-SUV than 'car). So, I bought one.

It's good. There are physical controls for the temperature and volume, and the door handles aren't stupid.

I walked away from a Ford Mach-E because I didn't want to have to explain how to open the doors to ever person I drove for the next five years.

But isn't that what the Corolla was?

Note that this is a concept, I've never seen an actual production model look anything like the concept.

My father has a hybrid model, 2023 MY I think. It has physical controls for the radio, for AC and related things, for the heated seats, for the various "driver assist" features (like auto high beams, a parking thing (no idea what that is), radar, lane assist). It has a touchscreen, but that only seems to handle the maps, fancy radio controls (think equalizer and such), and other "car settings", whatever those are. You can absolutely drive it without ever having to interact with the touchscreen while doing normal things. I hate touchscreen controls as much as the next HN poster, but I have strictly 0 beef with the Corolla on this front. Door handles and windows work exactly the same as on my 2005 "dumb" car. Hell, I think it even has a physical toggle for the "automatic night mode" on the rear-view mirror, while mine couldn't be "non automatic".

To GP's point, I don't think it ever was an "entry level" car, just a "normal compact" car. I don't see why adding an electric drivetrain would have someone expect it would somehow become a basic, "entry-level" car.

I don't say we don't need those, but the Corolla never seems to have targeted that market, at least here in Europe. There always were plenty similar-sized cheaper and more basic cars from domestic manufacturers. Is it different in the US?

I've never seen an actual production model look anything like the concept.

As an exception to this rule, the original Audi TT was surprisingly similar to the concept car and even the initial concept sketches. They had a crazy design idea and just went with it.

The new Chevy Bolt EV is also a "normal car but electric" to me. It's not a car, but it's not a huge SUV either. It has physical controls, you can disable the modem by pulling the OnStar fuse, and it has a decent range and decent fast charging.

I think Volkswagen ID.4 is alright. It's perhaps a bit small. Also - I kind of like the ID.Buzz though not sure if it will sell.

Not quite normal but not "future" - the Renault 5 E-tech electric is nice but I don't think it's available in the US.

Was just looking at the Buzz today - unfortunately, seems like it's already dead (and there are some insane incentives out there to move what's left).

It was too expensive!

3 button presses just to start driving. I hated kona so bad. Annoying bing bongs, no app and of course we hit wheel of fortune issue.

I was without a car for half a year 2026-02 to 2026-08 and drove a number of electrics from the local car share (where I've had a membership since around 2011). Hyudai Kona, Kia Niro, Chevy Bolt, ...

I had a good camping experience with the Niro. Since Kia doesn't believe in spare tires being default, I was able to stuff sleeping bags, beds and a bunch of other stuff all underneath the hatchback floor, in all that secret space, leaving a ton of room above for everything else.

I like the acceleration and quiet/clean operation of electrics, but in the end I got a 6 speed manual.

Electrics are super dangerous; they accelerate like souped-up competitive track cars. They really need to tone that down: use much smaller motors with less torque, and hack the software to cap the acceleration.

I'm a much calmer driver in a manual. I'm driving for fuel economy, so I'm always in a gear where I have no power. (And in a 6 speed that has about the range of a 5 speed, there is always a good gear to be in at city speeds, where you are at between 1500-1800 RPM). So, I cannot just step on the accelerator on a whim because that will usually do nothing. There is an activation energy for speeding up, due to the chore of shifting down, which discourages doing it casually. In an electric it's like, oh, I suddenly see this opportunity, and blam: you're on the accelerator and the distance between here and there is erased faster than you can hit backspace.

At one point my car had a firmware update that made the Eco mode sluggish in acceleration. I thought it made perfect sense; being economical in battery use means limiting acceleration. It received so much backlash that the manufacturer had to issue a subsequent update to increase the acceleration cap.

Funny, I will not buy a car that has an app.

To each their own, but hard to grasp why. It's one the most expensive assets you own. Why wouldn't you want to monitor it at least?

Do you also not have house monitoring (you don't need to control every light switch (which can be useful to have lights on when you get back home), but things like temperature, humidity, power use, air quality, water use/leaks is far cheaper than 1 insurance claim).

Different person, but I don't want a car that has an app precisely because it's so expensive. Cell phones her replaced way more often, and the people running the app stores are very aggressive about not supporting old apps. So within maybe half the life of the car, the app will no longer install.

Had found this in the 2nd generation Nissan Leaf. It would have been perfect but for the slow and non-standard charger.

Looking forward to the Volkswagen ID Polo hitting the used market in a couple of years. Physical buttons, decent range and charge times, and it’s rated to pull reasonable loads.

Kia Niro is where the Koreans have invested their stuipd; a stateful panel in which volume and temperature knobs are multiplexed, and and so are tactile-free touch places on the panel between them. And it won't stay in the same mode; it changes it behind your back. You think the knob is volume because you last tweaked it a minute ago, but nope, you are messing with the temperature now.

Look into the Nissan Leaf, one of the early EV models. I don't know what the 2026 is like but my 2021 has 220-ish miles of range and is... an electric car.

It's a car. That's electric.

Physical buttons. Normal doors. Normal design. Normal handles. Normal controls. Drives great and accelerates better than an economy gas car.

As a bonus, that means almost the entire car is standard. Other than the electric drive train, a regular mechanic can work on everything else: tires, wheels, brakes, suspension, etc.

It's given us basically zero problems. Maintenance so far is a few minor recall items (free fixes) and a tire rotation. We bought it new during COVID.

Only downside to the 2021 model was the CHaDemO (or however you caps it) plug, which is obsolescent. I think recent models have CCS. There is a converter dongle and if I fast charged often I'd pick one up. Apparently they work but they're a little pricey since unfortunately it's not just a simple plug converter. It's a different signaling and locking system, so it has to be a smart dongle.

The Leaf is massively underrated IMO.

There used to be huge FUD campaigns against Leafs, and against not many others. Perhaps because Leaf at face value could have rendered entry trim Model S and Model 3 pointless.

Highly analogue? We all want that but you have to realize we aren't ever getting that. The incentives aren't there.

I don't mind analogue buttons or anything and I think screens can kind of suck especially with Android and auto manufacturer abandonware, but with the Tesla I now own I'm always wondering what people are using all these buttons for - thinking back to my previous Hondas. In the Tesla I've got climate control, heated seats, and music/navigation. Some of the other features like adjusting mirrors I can use the multi-purpose buttons for in the correct context. On any given drive I hop in, put my phone on the charger and don't use it, and then just drive.

What am I missing? Or is it just that folks want buttons? Is it the design?

What you are missing is you can press the button blind while you are looking at the road, the button merely closes a circuit and always works.

But I'm talking beyond just the buttons. Pure analog. No telemetry. No cellular connection. Real rack and pinion again. Real gauges. No drive by wire wherever possible. Maybe the actual ev motor output can be controlled with a simple switch in the circuit vs an entire ecu with throttle profiles and all the bullshit. Basically, your car in 2003, with the gas engine replaced with an electric motor. Pure car. Dead simple systems. Easy access engine bays.

It isn't happening again. These things are ipads on wheels that try and surveil you and come up with datapoints they can somehow make some money off of.

I'm not really concerned with hitting the button blind but I understand the desire to have no "tracking" or anything like that. Volume in the Tesla at least there is a button and you can configure some of those things with software. I know the heated seats and climate control are done via the iPad as you call it but I don't have to look at those. Once you hit it enough you just know where it is, or you can use voice control if you're not that comfortable. I can also text on my iPhone pretty well without looking at the keyboard.

But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with all these gauges and stuff. I have 0 interest in trying to repair my car or understand how any of it works. I just want to get in, have it be super comfortable, everything works and it gets me from A to B pretty fast. The only gauge I care about is the speed at which the car is traveling. Well the battery too I guess but if I'm taking a trip where that's of concern the car handles the stops for me.

I get that people do enjoy that stuff which is super cool - I'm not hating on it, but figured I'd just provide a different perspective maybe. For me the biggest concern is just this dog shit Android software and abandonware that all the manufacturers create (except Tesla funny enough - I'm not a shill or anything, Elon sucks and I'll never buy another one because of him) which I think is probably the biggest negative to the iPad-ification. Thankfully there's Android Auto and Apple Car Play but still the computers in the cars can be underpowered to use those.

Maybe the actual ev motor output can be controlled with a simple switch in the circuit vs an entire ecu with throttle profiles and all the bullshit. Basically, your car in 2003, with the gas engine replaced with an electric motor.

Your gas car in 2003 probably directly connects the accelerator pedal to the throttle ... but it also has an entire ecu with a whole bunch of stuff to figure out how much fuel to add given the throttle position / airflow and also almost certainly has the ecu controlling ignition too. Even my 1981 van has an ECU to sets fuel volume, although it doesn't have electronic ignition or water cooling.

You can open the throttle all the way, and if the fuel volume doesn't change, you won't get much in the way of extra vrooming.

That said, as simple as possible, but no simpler is a good goal.

Throttle by wire was already a thing but 2003. My 1999 truck had it - diesel benefitted more from that so it came earlier than gas.

I agree. How do you feel about the Slate truck?

Nit: electric power steering is still rack and pinion. The old system is hydraulic vs electric.

I also drive a Hyundai Kona. Here are some things I use the physical buttons for that I wouldn't want to use a screen for:

- turning the air conditioning up or down (or off) while I'm driving and feel too hot/cold

- adjusting the volume of music or the radio while driving

- turning on the radio

- turning seat heaters on or off

I don't want to fiddle with a touchscreen to do any of these things while the car is in motion.

I hear ya. I can't speak to other cars but in my Tesla I never have to fiddle with any of that stuff. I just press the button on the screen for example to modulate the climate control even when the car is in motion - I don't need to look at all. There's no feedback (haptic feedback would be a nice improvement actually). In the rare instance that I need to do something "complicated" I'd just put the car into the Autosteer mode. But that's only something that would really be done on the highway in a safe manner. In my older cars I found using the buttons to switch between say albums or something that to not really be that much easier. Maybe slightly worse.

On the other hand, boy when I get a rental car there are so many buttons to mess around with it's like going backwards in time (for me) in terms of ease of use. Even something like having to turn on/off the car itself is now a chore. Why do I need to even turn the car on? It should just always work. Obviously part of that is "it's a new car" but a lot of that stuff seems very needlessly complex. I'm not talking about turning the heat on or off even though a lot of those implementations seem way more complicated than they need be (engineers gonna engineer and over-complicate things unless someone stops them) but other random things.

I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara 2010, and from left to right, the essentials buttons are (grouped by location):

- Window controls and lock/unlock

- Power mirrors adjustment (after someone else has driven the car)

--

- Light stick/knob (it has auto mode)

- Steering wheel control for the head unit (vol +/-,...). It also has cruise but I don't use that

- Wiper and washers stick/knob

--

- AC adjustment. It's a knob for temperature with 2 buttons inside (auto mode toggle and off)

- Fresh/recycled air switch

- AC/ventilation switch

- Ventilation speed. It's also a knob with 2 buttons, but I only remember the mode one (to switch between front/front and feet/heater/...)

- A defrost button

- ESP (ABS) disable button

--

- Window/door lock/ on the passenger door.

There's nothing else. For any of those buttons I would hate to use a touch screen. With physical controls, I can rely on location, haptic, and muscle memory without using vision.

No one actually wants highly analog car. Also it's illegal to sell in most countries. Mandatory cameras, safety features, emergency assistance etc

The article does say that the electric Corolla is to be priced at $30k, about $3,000 more than the hybrid and $5,000 more than the gas-powered one. That may not be objectively 'low cost', but it's comparable in cost to the lowest-cost new EVs, and probably similar total cost of ownership to the hybrid/gas cars when considering cheaper fuelling.

Maybe they could shave $3-5000 off the cost by not giving it a "high-tech interior", going completely against the design philosophy of the car in the first place.

They absolutely could not, the high-tech interior is cheaper. A screen is cheaper than ten million tiny little buttons.

Incidentally, this is also partly why the interiors feel so egregious and cheap in the pieces of shit produced by Germans these days.

Omitting the cellular modem would be a nice way to save a few bucks, and would save me the effort of pulling the fuse or disassembling the dash in order to silence Internet traffic to and from the car. But how will Toyota sell my driving habits to car insurance companies then?

I'm not in the US, but here in Europe Toyota's hold their value really well (too well I'd say). Is that reflected in the US financing rates, so you can get it for really low payments?

It is low cost! The Tesla Model 3 was twice the cost almost a decade ago.

BTW: The price premium for electric is offset by the lower cost of electricity, and the fact that electricity's cost is much less volatile than gas.

Depends on where you live. In states like Connecticut, or certain areas of California (PG&E Bay Area customers), the ROI is very long or simply doesn't pencil out at all. I think for Connecticut, which has high electricity prices but low gas prices, it's just net negative. For me in SF, despite high gas prices the ROI is just too long (5-10 years?), and that's before factoring in the ~$5000+ required for updating my electrical box, which is a conservative estimate because now the city requires the meter to be outside the house, whereas it's currently in the garage.

Until your current car dies, ges old or whatever happens, you decide you need a new one anyway. At that point the ROI is not the total cost of the car but the difference compared to your alternatives.

I drive an EV because in every dimension I care about it’s a superior vehicle. They drive better, sound better, and use a fundamental force rather than flintstone fire smoke stink. It’s time to move on from pouring distilled dinosaur juice into your explosion mobile and join the Maxwell equation crowd. The upgrade of your electric is a one time cost that will enable you to use an EV until you move, and improves your home value, so hard to count it into the cost of the car.

Plus they last basically forever and require almost no maintenance. I like being able to never change oil, tune up, belts, whatever every few months. Every few years I get the cabin filter changed and that’s it. In 10 years the battery might be reduced by 20%, and I might replace the batteries around 15-20 years out, but I expect to literally drive it into the ground. (Mine is a Tesla with unlimited super charging for life, and I live next to a super charger)

I have family overseas and will likely buy them one of these EV Camrys. If they’re good, I might get one for my daughter. At $30k it’s fairly affordable.

entry-level, low cost, highly analogue

there is a chance that slapping one screen is now lower cost than few dozens mechanical knobs, connectors and sensors

There is also a chance I won't buy a car without knobs. Car software has been historically so bad. My latest doesn't have a volume knob so my front passengers can't turn the volume at all (the UX is sliding the screen from the side to get navigation bars to appear which contain a volume button that you have to drag laterally - no increase/decrease software buttons). Otherwise it's a great car and that is literally the one drawback.

I must be the minority surely, but given the choice between knobs and screen, knobs are the deciding factor. Even if it's more expensive, it's UX that you use permanently while operating heavy machinery!

Yeah, please have knobs. I don't mind a bit of screen, but all the frequent stuff I want in knobs.

Eh...I honestly don't care anymore.

Provided there's steering wheel and stalk controls, what do I really need to adjust on a center console while driving? I just want a big nav map or camera feed there.

Temperature? Music? Defroster?

To be honest in my opinion car design got so boring in general since about 20 years ago that it's nice to see it mixed up with these hyper futuristic concept designs.

It makes the future feel fun, and feels like a return to adventurous aesthetics for the pure sake of it. At the very least, it's noticably different and interesting. I hope architecture follows suit.

They've been making concept cars that entire 20 year period.

They just get completely watered down for production. As will happen here. That's why they're concepts.

I was surprised to read the headline because this is going in a different direction than most car companies. For example, VW, Ford, GM, and others have been axing electric vehicles that they started selling a few years ago. They discovered that most people who wanted EVs had already purchased them, and the rest of the market wasn't interested enough to pay the price premium.

Then I read the key quote and realized that Toyota isn't transforming the Corolla into an electric vehicle. They're simply going to offer an electric option. That's much less of an interesting headline, which explains why it wasn't chosen.

“Whether it’s a battery EV, plug-in hybrid, hybrid, or internal combustion engine vehicle―whatever the power source―let’s make good-looking cars that everyone will want to drive!” Toyota’s CEO said at the Japan Mobility Show.

let’s make good-looking cars that everyone will want to drive!

This is a very unfortunate goal for Toyota specifically to have. I am extremely loyal to driving late 90s/early 2000s toyotas (I have owned at various points a 1997 corolla, a 1999 camry, and a 2000 tundra, and my daily driver today is such a car as well), due to them being extremely cost effective and also extremely reliable. A well-maintained, or even moderately maintained, late 90s/early 2000s Toyota car is, in my experience, almost as reliable as a new car that costs 4x+ the price, and it has the benefit of much less DRM, spyware, and other software bullshit, as well as being much easier to repair. I am also unaware of any modern car that is remotely like this, as well as unaware of any electric car that is remotely like this, except maybe Slate (though this is not available yet, so I am withholding judgement until I can see 3rd party reviews and maybe try one).

But, to summarize, I really like some of Toyota's old work for intensely practical reasons, and I think that this is a gap in the market of cars manufactured today (someone please tell me I am wrong by pointing to a good option on these criteria, preferably an EV!), and I couldn't give a rat's ass about the car being "good-looking", so it's unfortunate (though not surprising) that Toyota is deeming that their goal.

Toyota, like many companies that succeed based on merits beyond the aesthetic, secretly dreams of being an aesthetics-first company like, say, Porche or Ferrari, and always tries their hardest to reject reality so that they can do the sexy-but-awful thing instead of the amazing-but-ugly thing.

You see this recently over the last couple years in tech where everyone is "an AI company" even when they make something totally unrelated - same impulse, different industry.

I've noticed this too.

It is completely baffling.

There must be something seriously wrong with our economy that companies operating like this don't go bankrupt and/or get driven out of business.

The problem with our economy is basically wealth concentration, partly funded by central banks and partly by lack of billionaire taxation. In a traditional economy, money was meant to always flow circularly, throughout the whole economy. Rich people could exist, but they could only exist by commanding a large upward flow of money from poor/middle people, so they had to offer something really good in return. These days the money mostly circulates between different rich people with only some loss back down to the poorer classes, so to get money they have to impress other rich people instead of poorer people. Companies who go full AI don't attract customers (unless B2B), they attract investors because the investors have all the money and the customers don't.

For example, VW, Ford, GM, and others have been axing electric vehicles that they started selling a few years ago. They discovered that most people who wanted EVs had already purchased them, and the rest of the market wasn't interested enough to pay the price premium.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the EV market, which continues to grow, albeit slowly, in the US and much faster elsewhere. At best it is constrained to the US car market where the government has been yanking incentives, tariffs, and emissions requirements back and forth recently, providing an unstable market for manufacturers to invest in.

Some brands put together EV models that were inherently unprofitable, and hoped that incentives and scale would save them, mainly Ford. Ford is currently investing a lot into building their next-gen EV platforms which should be both more affordable and profitable. GM has not cancelled any EV models that I'm aware of, except the Bolt which is planned to be replaced by a new affordable EV model in a similar market slot.

VW is introducing a lot of new EV models in Europe and other markets, but not so much in the US where policy has us a less favorable market for them.

Toyota + Subaru have introduced multiple refreshed or brand new EV-only models over the last year including in the US.

And of course China is going crazy for EVs with many competing domestic manufacturers, a full battery supply chain, and many affordable models to pick from.

Meanwhile, batteries keep getting better and cheaper, in most places the charging networks are growing, and charging is getting faster.

Yep, I find that a lot of EV-hesitants in the US have no idea how much the travel charging network has grown.

https://dcfctracker.com/map

A lot of them also just aren't even aware that DC Fast Charging is a thing and make comments about needing several hours to charge your car.

And the last criticism is particularly silly. Do you need several hours to charge an electric car? Yes you do. Do cars spend most of their time parked in one place? You bet they do!

Do you need several hours to charge an electric car? Yes you do.

No you don't. 20 minutes at a DCFC will get you to at least 80% for most EVs.

You need several hours to charge it at home, but it's gonna be at home for several hours anyways. With an L2 charger, you can go from 0-100% overnight.

DCFC does not charge "most EV" to 80 in 20 mins. There are some new ones that can do 10-80 in that time, but if you're lower than 10, or if you don't have a better-than-average late-model EV, it's going to be longer than that.

L2 charging usually happens overnight, but larger capacity batteries won't fill if you don't plug in early enough.

Like most people, my car is used for not just my regular trips around town, which I can certainly charge overnight no problem and be fine. My car is also used for the longer road trips.

It is 300 miles to my mom's house. Some electric cars could just make that in perfect conditions but give me a headwind or a cold day both of which happen once in a while and I can't make 300 miles on a charge and I will have to stop in the middle. At that point a fast charge is required. It is not acceptable to say I have to stop somewhere that I don't want to be for many hours to charge my car to get it the rest of the way. That is a trip where, if you have to make it, there isn't a better option. Flying would be even longer than driving by the time I get to the airport and rent a car on the far end, not to mention a lot more expensive.

At least in the U.S. it is very common for people to make a one or two thousand mile trip once a year for vacation. Particularly if you have a family, flying is not a reasonable cost and so you'll take those several days of driving to save money. Those road trips also let you stop someplace and see some weird small-town exhibit which is fun in its own way

It is not acceptable to say I have to stop somewhere that I don't want to be for many hours to charge my car to get it the rest of the way.

I think the issue you're stuck on is driving an EV like an ICEV. When you're low on gas you stop, fill up, and continue. It's slightly different with an EV because you shouldn't fill up all the way on a stop. That takes so much more time because the batteries charge slower as they fill up. So if you want to get somewhere quicker you should actually be charging less at stops and stopping more often. I don't know about other cars but Tesla has a good route planner built in that does this for you and preconditions the battery while you travel to a fast charger, which is also important to reduce charge times.

I think the problem is not that people don't want electric cars. The problem is that people don't have a place to plug the car at home.

I think the US is still pretty far from saturating the potential market of garage-owning car buyers with EVs, but that is a major hurdle for people who rent or street park and might be interested in saving gas money.

My electric panel is full. If I want to add an EV charger to my garage, I first have to replace the electric panel with a larger one. That’s minimum $5000 before I even get to the EV charger.

There are potentially options that could work for you, including:

1) Just charge from an existing 120V outlet. If you average under 50 miles of driving per day this might work just fine.

2) Reshuffle existing circuits to get even a 20A 240V circuit for charging. This provides more than double the charging you can get from a 15A 120V outlet and may be possible by combining some existing circuits with tandem breakers. A lot of electricians will just quote you on going straight to a 50A or 60A circuit, but most chargers are configurable to lower levels and it can save you a lot of money to stick to a smaller circuit.

3) Share a circuit with a dryer using a device that automatically switches power off to the car while the dryer is running, there are a few brands of these.

4) Get an EV charger that supports load management, using a current sensor on your main breaker. These can dynamically adjust how much current the car draws to avoid exceeding the max current of your panel.

5) Electric meter socket adapter, these connect between your utility's electric meter and its socket and provides an EV charging port that doesn't go through your household panel at all.

the rest of the market wasn't interested enough to pay the price premium.

Would love a Toyota EV but usually for significantly less I can get a Toyota hybrid with more space. Both my partner's and my vehicles are Toyota hybrid crossovers but we looked for an EV first and realized we simply couldn't justify the extreme price difference for how little our cars are driven. Really hoping when our time for a new vehicle comes we can trade in both for one reasonably priced EV crossover - so hopefully the rest of the planet can continue pushing the EV market forward while the US lags way behind.

Today there isn't really a price premium for electric cars. With Gas prices being what they are the demand is naturally increasing.

Even with normal Gas prices EVs are cheaper

You are forgetting the elephant in the room: the charger at home and all the implications that brings in between costs and actual possibility of installation at all.

Ya that’s the big issues with EVs. It’s overblown in a lot of ways - it is, ultimately, just getting electricity where you park your car - but power at your overnight parking spot is a massive component of happy EV ownership and we’ve done almost nothing to help or even encourage that for apartment dwellers

You don't need a home charger to enjoy driving an EV. A home charger is a bonus to driving an EV. Do you know anyone who has ever had a "home gas pump"?

Not to mention how many people sleep on Level 1 and Level 2 charging, which are cheap or cheap as free in many homes. (Garages have had electric outlets for a long time. Some have had "dryer plugs" for nearly as long, due to power tools one might own.) Trickle charging doesn't get you to 100% overnight, but no one drives on a 100% full gas tank every morning either.

Do you know anyone who has ever had a "home gas pump"?'

You know that's a bad faith argument. Facts are, EVs have friction and that holds back a lot of adoption, and pretending it isn't there isn't going to make it go away.

It's not a bad faith argument, it is comparing like for like. (Saying that it isn't like for like seems to me to be the more bad faith argument in 2026.) If I have a gas car with 300 miles of range I go about 297 miles safely between fill ups. If I have an EV car with 300 miles of range I can go about 297 miles safely between charges. Those are the same characteristics.

The part that isn't like for like sure is that there is an increased friction that even a "fast charger" can take a magnitude more time than a gas pump. But fast chargers are much safer and can be parallel tasked (running other errands while a charge happens) whereas gas is an explosive and requires diligent observation while refueling (despite how many people seem oblivious to all the warnings not to leave a refueling car unobserved and a long history of explosion statistics).

In my experience, fast charging time and lack of home charging ability (and under-estimation of Level 1/2 charging utility) feel like red herrings rather than actual issues. These things get talked about a lot, but the real world experience of them isn't the friction people believe it is. The biggest issues seem to be far more sociopolitical than technical to me. People have invested too much of their identities in gas. Entire political parties seem devoted to propping up gas sales for as long as possible.

It is definitely a bad faith argument. That is no friction point really that anyone considers a friction point. The charger situation though is real friction. Take yourself out of your own shoes. I will give you anecdata. I have a friend who bought a tesla with no way to charge it in their apartment. It just seems like such a pain in the ass. So many times they are on like 18% charge and wondering if the car is going to actually make it home. Or they will be about to go somewhere and realize the car isn't going to be charged enough so they call an uber. It is unreliable transport without having a home charger. A new chore you have to remember to do. A bit more mental load making that extra calculation every time you want to leave. Having to actually consider where there might be chargers that you can use and if you'd be able to reach them on your present charge.

Take all of that anecdata and replace a gas car and it is the exact same with the same mental load: I've been on 18% fuel tank and wondering if my car will actually make it home or stall out on the road. I've been about to go somewhere and realized my car isn't fueled and and called a taxi or a Lyft as faster than the detour to refuel my car.

"It's an unreliable transport without having a gas pump at home." That just sounds silly. Funnily enough that was exactly one of the early complaints of gas cars when electric cars were preferred in the very early days of cars. It was a complaint when gas pumps were rare and hard to find, or didn't exist at all yet and you were pulling gas canisters from the back of a pharmacy.

It's a more reliable transport than a gas car because I can charge at home. (I can't do that at all with gas.) It's a more reliable transport than a gas car because in a pinch I can find an outlet on the outside of my hotel and trickle charge enough to get me to the next charger. (When was the last time a hotel had canisters of gas just in case?) It's a more reliable transport than a gas car because I can find RV plugs in national parks and state parks and campgrounds far away from chargers and gas stations. (You ever see what you might get charged for a tow from a remote national park, even if that tow is just dropping off a canister of gas?)

The impression of the charger situation being more inconvenient than gas stations is already flipping and has room to flip a lot more, possibly surprisingly quickly, as gas prices rise and low margin gas pumps go out of business.

I found some data from an auto insurance association.

In US urban areas the average car is only driven 6000 miles a year. That's 115 miles a week. Someone in an urban city would only need to charge every two weeks. Friend has a Chevy Bolt in SF he parks on the street. He says it's not a problem.

I also repeat myself but I've measured how long it take to gas up a car on road trips. It's usually around 10-15 minutes. Oh sure actually filling the car is quick. But you have to drive to the gas station, fill the car, drive away from the gas station.

it is comparing like for like.

Is it? Can I get an electric car recharged at a gas station in the same time it takes me to fill up a gas tank?

If yes, cool. If not, then the idea is that I wouldn't want to sit in a parking lot; I'd want to charge at home instead. And if I can't reliably charge at home instead...

Pretty close. ~15 minutes for gas [0], ~20 minutes for electric. People often claim ~5 minutes for gas, but in reality most people stop for ~15 minutes for refueling. According to AAA at least, who I generally trust more than anecdotes on the Internet.

You don't need a home charger to enjoy driving an EV. A home charger is a bonus to driving an EV.

I know precisely zero people who have EVs and do not charge them at home. The cost differential is enormous and completely changes the economics of cost per mile.

Trickle charging doesn't get you to 100% overnight, but no one drives on a 100% full gas tank every morning either.

Sure, but a full gas tank gets you further than a full battery. We have friends with a long range Tesla that takes them days to charge on 120. Despite living in a city with many Teslas, and having an expensive home, apparently it would have cost too much for them to upgrade their panel to be able to charge faster. They are retired so can make do (and they have other cars that use gas).

The cost differential is enormous and completely changes the economics of cost per mile.

Which is exactly the point and why it is a bonus. You can't do that with a gas car effectively or cheaply. You won't pay someone to come and install a gas service in your home or apartment with the express reason for fueling your car. That you can with an EV and would get a game changing efficiency and cost reduction is an incredible bonus.

Sure, but a full gas tank gets you further than a full battery.

That seems to be less of a factor today. Most batteries have hit the same or more range as comparable gas vehicles.

Some EV models already have ~600 mile range which is double their gas counterparts.

We have friends with a long range Tesla that takes them days to charge on 120.

Sure, but that's to 100%. You can drive a car with less than 100% battery. A 120v charge can add as much as 40-60 miles range overnight. That's an average person's regular commute. The car might "never" be at 100% if the 120v charge is all it ever gets, but for some people they might never need a fast charge in an average week or even month.

I know precisely zero people who have EVs and do not charge them at home. The cost differential is enormous and completely changes the economics of cost per mile.

I know multiple people who have EVs and don't have a home charger, so do 90%+ of their charging at work. You're there 8+ hours a day anyway, and many workplaces provide free charging, so it ends up even cheaper than charging at home.

You just plug it into the wall like a computer. I don't know why you think you need to install anything.

If you only need level 1 charging, or you already have a 240v outlet in your garage, sure.

Otherwise, you're gonna need an electrician to put a 240v outlet or dedicated EV charger.

Compared to the cost of buying the car, or hell, the cost a few months of gasoline, installing a charger at home is a nothingburger. A one-time investment that immediately pays dividends.

I don’t know about the others but Ford isn’t axing it’s EVs, it’s reworking them to make them cheaper.

It axed the F150 Lightning. They might have later announced that they're going to bring it back as an EREV (pretty much PHEV), but that seemed like a separate decision. If it were the same decision, they would have announced it at the time of the cancellation announcement, to make it seem more like a pivot.

That’s actually old news they just announced the Ford Fathom, which is all electric and supposedly significantly cheaper than even the base model lightning.

Well, when they announced the Ford 150 Lightning, it was supposedly going to be quite inexpensive as well. Of course, by the time it actually came out, it was 2x or 3x the price that they had originally announced.

it was 2x or 3x the price that they had originally announced.

That's hyperbole. They announced at 40K for the base model. Briefly sold it for that to people with early reservations, then jacked up the base price to like 48K. And a year later they kept on raising it, peaking, as I recall, at just under 60K. It was never 2x or 3x unless you are counting the worst examples of the dealer mark-up gouging. But that's not a problem Ford could do much to solve. And by 2024 they were selling for quite reasonable prices -- I got my extended range Flash for 50K out the door, which was a good bit less than the hybrid I had been shopping for.

There are routinely mark-ups on popular vehicles, and I bet there will be a period of time when this is true for the Fathom as well. Early adopters are willing to pay extra, so the market is there to take advantage of that.

The rest of the world doesn't drive F-series trucks.

I'm thinking of getting a Ford EV as my next car, prefer the features and looks to the equivalent Stellantis models.

IIRC the F-150 is the most popular vehicle by sales in the US.

The Lightning ended early because the aluminum plant fires were cutting Ford's ability to produce enough F150s of any kind. They make more money on the ICE trucks than the EVs, so the Lightning got the axe first.

EREV (pretty much PHEV)

There is not much relationship between an EREV and a PHEV. An EREV is way, way closer to a BEV than it is to a hybrid. And I'll eat my hat if Ford actually releases an F150 EREV. That announcement was to mollify angry customers who thought Ford should not have killed the most popular EV truck on the market.

Frankly I'll be surprised if anyone seriously goes for EREVs. They make very little sense, which is why (AFAIK) it's only seen production once or twice in small numbers.

For example, VW, … have been axing electric vehicles that they started selling a few years ago

most people who wanted EVs had already purchased them

You should really reconsider where you get your information from.

“Volkswagen reported more than 70,000 orders for its new Electric Urban Car Family within just a few weeks, while European BEV orders increased by more than 50% in Q2.”

https://www.volkswagen-group.com/en/half-yearly-financial-re...

America, where they are pulling models. I have PHEVs and enjoy them, but I am aware that many people are not going to buy EVs with their current specs. Either they live somewhere cold, where range will fluctuate and not be sufficient at times of the year, or they live somewhere that has power outages frequently enough (or at times of emergency) that they do not consider pure EVs. This is especially true for people with only one car. Families that have multiple cars are obviously more open to having one car that's an EV.

Norway proves that cold is not a problem—it’s a matter of incentives

I don't understand the argument, wouldn't you _want_ an EV if you have frequent power outages?

You could run your house for weeks off a 100kWh traction battery with V2G.

I looked into this and discovered that most EVs don't support it, and the ones that do require even more electrical retrofitting to make it possible.

The people I know who are afraid of outages/EV usage are ones in CA, where an earthquake could knock out power, and they'd need to go a very long distance to get somewhere safe/stable.

If there's a charging station with power within 200 miles then you're fine. That's a pretty big radius.

If power is out in that large of a radius you would also likely have trouble getting gas.

And you don't need the expensive equipment to just run an extension cord from the EV to power critical appliances.

If there's a charging station with power within 200 miles it will be overloaded by everyone freeing. There are way more gas stations than charging stations, and they only take a few mins per person, so they would not be nearly as overloaded. Also, there would not be a "run on the bank" mentality since everyone knows gas is pretty available, even in emergencies.

As for powering critical appliances, I'd need a super long heavy duty extension cord to power my fridge, and I don't even know if my vehicle is capable. I'd also have to have my garage door open while it's plugged in, which is not ideal to say the least.

In real world examples (places that get hurricanes, for example), the charging stations generally come back online before the gas stations. And an EV is way better in stop-and-go evacuation traffic, too.

need a super long heavy duty extension cord to power my fridge

Why on earth would you need a heavy duty extension cord for something which pulls so little power?

I otherwise agree with the sentiment, however, it is way more convenient to set up your panel so you can backfeed it to power the whole house (or a nice chunk of it, at least). My Lightning will power all the important bits of my house for the better part of a week, all from the plug in the bed of the truck.

Historically most of these "Whether it’s a battery EV, plug-in hybrid, hybrid, or internal combustion engine vehicle―whatever the power source" platforms have been utter ICE-first EV-distant-fourth-priority shit shows. Most of the exceptions are rather expensive.

The US big 3 and VW canceled several EV product lines because the government policy flipped from subsidizing them to subsidizing ICE production. With the Iran war, the economics has shifted again and some of the products they canceled could have been made profitable, but it's too late for most of them now. This actually creates an opening for Rivian's downmarket R2 line expansion.

Meanwhile the Chinese companies are disrupting the overseas market for all of them (which is why Toyota is fretting). Many don't realize the disruptive potential of China's battery, EV, and solar panel supply chain combined with the oil shock - many subtropical countries are on the verge of flipping their economies to be linked to China's because of this. The long term consequences for American and European manufacturing supply chains will be major - not just in terms of present but future orders, since many of those countries are continuing to grow their consumer base faster than US/EU.

I picked up a '25 Subaru Solterra (rebadged Toyota bz4X) for a decent lease deal and while I'm surprised how little I think about the EV parts the "car parts" are dreadful.

I really need to do a write-up on the dichotomy of EV things being good (charger works, no real battery QC issues, it's a RAV4-but-EV) while all of the shared ICE parts (anything in the software stack) are riddled with bugs or head-scratching defaults.

Overall, a fine car for me, but (as much as I do not like El*n) Telsa is so significantly beyond their offerings it's hard to overstate.

EDIT:

I forgot to add but I think the cost savings for EVs can be a wash, make sure you check the following:

1.) can't charge at home / live in an apartment.

1a.) If you do install a L2 charger at home, you will significantly reduce your cost savings.

2.) you rely on fast-chargers in any significant capacity.

3.) Double check the math on any lease, loan, etc. on new EVs vs. a beater gas car. Especially if you pay an EV tax in your state or country. (Post-COVID the $2K beater car seems to have gone extinct here...)

in contrast, i bought a 2026 Subaru Uncharted, which is a clean sheet EV design, collaboration on powertrain components between Subaru and Toyota, and it's awesome. My BMW i4 xdrive 40 handled worse, had software bugs, cost about 50% more, and had a cheaper interior with truly stupid engineering choices, but you could choose from more colors. I had a clean sheet ev design i3 for about 8 years before that and it was cool.

I wonder, from your comments, and my cars, if the trick is ev-only designs, as the Solterra has various altered versions, as did the i4, whereas my i3 and Uncharted were designed only to be EVs.

edit: charging L2 at home is great, to your point.

It's weird to me because they apparently have the same issues across their gas cars that sell enormously well.

My friend with a '25 taco has issues with remote start, fob range and infotainment stability.

My friend with a '24 corolla has the same issues on his car.

I never will (also because of Elon), but this comment makes me curious to experience a Tesla. Are they really so much better? I've heard endless bad things about their build quality.

After returning a '25 Mercedes EQB (employee lease), I bought a used '23 Solterra, and it seems like a better than linear downgrade (that is, the overall experience is a bit worse, but the price is lower by more than how much worse it is). The software and interface are all completely fine, and stay out of the way of driving and Android Auto. And I'm rather glad for the lack of some of the bells and whistles, because the dashboard screen on the MB had too much going on.

I've been in my friends Model 3 many times and it's full of "oh why didn't anyone think of this before" and EV-centric choices. There's stupid stuff too (no turning stalks or shifter) but even ignoring the software choices it's really that much better of a car.

The software and interface are all completely fine

Perhaps whatever platform mine, my friends corolla and friends taco are on is just busted but I wish it had even 70% reliability of just working when I'm using anything software related.

I own very first model Y, but wouldn’t buy the facelift. Changing gears swiping touchscreen is too much despite many real improvements. Build quality is definitely not premium, but it was single electrical vehicle I was able to afford and use as a substitute for petrol car. Many others at the time were good only as 2nd or 3rd car in the household.

I had a 21 Y, and now a 26. If you actually buckle your seat belt and turn on the feature, the car will auto select the correct gear without needing to do....anything. After a short while you get used to it on the rare occasions you do need to swipe the screen to change gear. Another thing I didn't notice during test drives, is that it does actually have permanent gear shifting controls - they're just by the hazard light (not a great place to use them often, but still there).

At least for me, the 26 is so much better built and fixed the insane body roll the 21 had that I'm quite happy with it.

My wife has also been full-EV for 5 years, first with a Kia Niro EV and now with a Hyundai Ioniq 9. Those are pretty good as "real car" EVs as well, though not without their own quirks (and, unfortunately, the Ioniq 9 recently had to have the ICCU replaced, as Hyundai still seemingly hasn't figured that problem out over the years).

EVs only really have forward and reverse, so I assume that's the automatic switching it does. Why in the world would you want a car to automatically switch between them? Even if that worked perfectly that doesn't sound all that helpful, and anything less than absolutely perfect sounds at best really annoying, and at worst dangerous.

Not to say that the Solterra's is ideal either. It's an awkward dial shifter below the HVAC controls, but at least it's a physical interface.

I've had not a single "quality issue" with my Model 3 other than the cabin air filter. The car interior stinks worse than any other car I've owned, if it isn't replaced on time! I too have heard a ton of bad things on Reddit. Then I went on the subreddits where people actually owned them. Those folks really seemed to like their cars. I can't say I LOVE the car... removing turn signals, wiper controls and ability to physically shift into reverse seem like brain-dead moves. Otherwise though? It's a lovely care to drive.

With over 57 million sold worldwide since it went on sale in 1966, the Toyota Corolla is widely considered the best-selling vehicle to date.

Is it or is it not the best-selling vehicle to date? Should be pretty simple to determine.

It's not. The Honda Super Cub is the top selling motor vehicle in the world, with 60 million produced in 2008 alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Super_Cub

You're wrong. The best-selling vehicle is the Flying Pigeon bicycle, the standard bicycle from Mao-era China with more than 500 million produced since 1950.

motor vehicle

I want an electric Supra.

Nobody's making good lightweight superfast electric sportscars except for Kia (EV6 GT, 600hp). That car is amazing but the interior is super-cheap and Kia failed to "do the Acura thing" that made the NSX respectable (it isn't a "Honda NSX").

The Porsche Taycan is an absolute boat, an old man's car, the thing weighs a ton. Handling is terrible, center of mass is way above the axles. BMW electrics are the same. Mercedes doesn't even have an electric performance car. The German car companies are really just "mailing it in" when it comes to electic sportscars; they refuse to actually try to build a good one.

Tesla Model S isn't much better and is discontinued.

Other than the $250k+ upcoming roadster and the $60k EV6 GT (cheap cloth seats, no leather option, Kia badge) there's really nothing out there that handles well. Pretty huge gap in the market there.

The EV6 GT is a 1550mm tall crossover SUV-coupe weighing almost 4900 lbs with 577 hp, but is more of a young man's sports car than a 1380mm tall sedan weighing 100 lbs more but approaching twice the power? Seems sensible.

You clearly haven't driven both.

Who cares if the roof is higher off the ground? The EV6's center of mass is much lower than the Porsche's.

The EV6 GT suspension is vastly superior, and it's active electronic; the Taycan just toggles between two settings ("normal" and "high-clearance" for going over speed bumps).

The EV6 GT's rear differential has electronic control; you can feel it when you take freeway turns at >80mph -- your brain tells you "the rear wheels should be fishtailing"... but they just don't. It's crazy. I think they actually factor in the steering wheel position, something you can't do with a simple mechanical differential. I've never felt anything like that in any other car.

But it still has the Kia badge. And the cheap interior. It's a shame; they could've used this car to launch an "Acura"-like brand with the EV6 GT as their NSX.

Still, Porsche should be embarrassed of the Taycan. That car is a joke.

I want an electric convertible Corvette C8.

Sadly, I might have to settle for the Porsche 718. Polestar 6 got me excited, but that project is basically dead, especially with Polestar being effectively banned starting with model year 2027. If the US government got its head out of its ass regarding Chinese cars, I'd REALLY like a BYD Denza Z Spider.

The sad thing is, the Venn Diagram of EV enthusiasts and sports car enthusiasts is almost two separate circles.

If they would bring a barebones electric station wagon to the US that would be heavenly.

Toyota wants to show nobody wants EVs by making EVs nobody wants.

I'd take a hard look at an electric Corolla if it's not much more expensive than the gas version

Am I the only one who thinks those look damned cool? If they provided some kind of stupid engine option to definitively hoon the thing, I’d be all over it.

Judging from the prototype Toyota is clearly not serious about actually producing this ev version.

That's right. Nobody wants EVs, and even if there is a niche demand, Chinese companies are dumping them at a national level. (look at the Europe plight)

They'll pretend to sell EVs to keep their options open, but they won't actually sell any.

The car is too low to the ground.

One of the things that really frustrated me about my Tesla Model 3 was how low it was. I would "look up" at Ford Fusions and other sedans on the road.

In contrast, my Model Y isn't an SUV. It's the height (and ground clearance) of what we used to call sedans, and really feels like a sedan instead of an SUV.

Why does every car manufacturer peddle these overly complex designs with massive displays, a futuristic aesthetic, etc?

People drive Corollas because they're cheap and reliable. Give me that with an electric motor.

That's what the market expects from an EV

This is what the market is being told to expect from an EV.

The Dacia Spring is what the market actually seems to want:

https://www.dacia.co.uk/hybrid-and-electric-range/spring-cit...

It's a car, not an Autobot.

The entry level model doesn’t even have an infotainment panel, it has a shelf you can place your phone on and use an app if you wish.

I drive an EV. It sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Worst driving experience of all cars I've owned. The lack of buttons and crappy HVAC controls are things I notice daily.

Outside of Tesla owners, I don't know a single EV owner who praises these elements. The EV market does not want this.