A $20k electric truck with manual windows and no screens? Meet Slate Auto
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This is basically a reliable, commercially viable version of that concept.
at a starting price of less than $20,000,
assuming federal clean vehicle tax credits continue to exist.In the following when I saw "tax credit" I mean the federal $7500 tax credit. Many EV makers with models that do not qualify for the tax credit are offering an equivalent credit which I will call "tax match". For some that is a straight up $7500 off. For others it is only if you finance through them (but if you prefer to buy outright just finance and then pay it off right away).
It is this tax match that was responsible for there being way more cars in my price range than I thought there would be.
BTW, if you are leasing instead of buying the tax credit is generally available even for EVs that do not qualify when you buy them.
I'm mostly going to be giving prices and discounts as you would find them at a dealer to better reflect what you are actually looking at out of pocket.
• Nissan Leaf S for around $29k. Tax match plus some other Nissan bonuses that every dealer seems to be offering brings it to $20k.
• Nissan Leaf SV Plus for around $39k. $29k after tax match plus other common discounts from Nissan and dealers.
• Nissan Ariya $42k for FWD, $46k for AWD, or $35k and $38k after tax match.
• Chevy Equinox EV for $35k, $27.5 after tax credit. That's the FWD model and has a 319 mile range. $5k for an AWD model (which drops the range to 309). (AWD actually adds $3k, but the base AWD model has $2k of other packages that are optional on the $35k model. If you start with the $35k model and add the packages you want you will almost certain add those packages too, and so then going to AWD will just add $3k).
• Hyundai Kona SE at $33k or $26k after the tax match.
• Hyundai Kona SEL at $37k or $30k after the tax match. This is what I ended up buying.
• Kia Niro Wind for $40k (but really $42k because I think most dealers add the package that replaces resistance heating with a heat pump) or $35k after the tax match.
• Kia Niro Wave for $47k (with the heat pump package) or $39k with the tax match and other discounts I saw at most dealers.
• Toyota bZ4X for $40k FWD or $44 AWD. No tax credit and no official tax match but the dealer I visited really wanted to push it so offered about $5k in discounts and rebates and offered $3k more in trade for my 2006 Honda CR-V than anyone else did and something that I don't remember that brought the AWD down to $35k. Oh and also 0% financing.
• Chevy Blazer EV at around $49k or $42k with the tax credit. I've seen some big discounts on this. My nearest Chevy dealer has a $6500 "Discount for Everyone" on these which would bring it $36k. I currently don't see that anywhere else so it may just be that one dealer.
• Hyundai IONIQ 6 SEL at $52k or $44k after the tax match. IONIQ 5 SE is about the same.
• Subaru Soltera at $40k. No tax credit or match.
• Fiat 500e at $34k MSRP. Dealers seem to give a discount of around $2k.
• Volkswagen ID.4 is a little confusing. My nearest dealer has an 2025 ID.4 Limited for $42.5 MSRP. So do other dealers. But Volkswagen's site does not list a Limited. The lowest trim is the Pro at $45k MSRP. Anyway, no tax credit or match but it looks like there is some sort of $5k bonus going on so about $36k.
I think that might be all the current model EVs in the US that are generally available for under around $40k after widely available incentives.
There are also several between there and the $70k range you mentioned.
I've asked before but still not sure how much information is given to a charger when you plug in an EV?
Edit: I now see that the article speculates that maybe there's a screen in the rear-view window for this. But I can't find anything concrete.
https://www.theverge.com/electric-cars/655527/slate-electric...
When you charge in a context where the car unlocks the charger (i.e. Tesla Supercharger), the protocol must divulge the car's certificate, signed by the owner of the charging network (like mTLS). There would be privacy-preserving protocols for this, but they are not used in practice.
Absolutely horrible.
3-4 standard DIN slots with simple plastic covers would let users install anything they want: a 2-DIN player, a 1-DIN CB radio and a 1-DIN equalizer or amp or tachograph, or simple storage space.
I'm not actually sure that this is necessary with USB-C, but when I had Lightning phones I noticed that every so often they would stop charging when I plugged them in.
I determined that was from pocket lint getting into the port. Scraping the lint out with a toothpick would fix things. When I got a phone with wireless charging I switched to using that and put a cover on the Lightning port.
I kept the habit of using a port cover when I got a USB-C phone. I've not actually checked to see if pocket lint is a problem with USB-C ports.
Hell I almost died in a head on collision with a semi truck if I didn’t swerve out of the way. Commercial trucking is where safety should be emphasized, not people who just want a small utility vehicle to do jobs around town.
I suspect it’s a small minority of people that encounter a logging truck in a given year. I’m in the PNW and you don’t see logging trucks barreling through big cities.
I found this: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-t...
5k fatalities.
> In an average year in B.C., large trucks are involved in less than one percent of all crashes – but they’re involved in nearly 20 percent of fatal crashes.
If you exclude motorcycle fatalities (which is usually only the motorcycle rider is seriously hurt, and that is a known risk they take) the numbers get even worse for commercial trucking.
When Americans complain about the "nanny state" I mentally replace it with "we collectively". Because that is what a state ought to be — a expression of collective will and common sense policy. If it isn't that way in your country currently, that isn't on the state, that is on the people who are supposed to hold the power. Quite frankly, an antagonistic perspective on "the state" might even help it becoming worse.
Collective rules are not needed if anybody just would act informed and reasonable. But that is not the case and never has been the case. Without a state the next-big entity (a company, some local war lord, a gang, a king) will become the force where the buck stops. Unless you want to be at their whim collective and divided power (Rule of Law) is the way to go.
I hope you do realize that what you're saying here could also be read as: "I really wish we (collectively) would let me (individually) make bad decisions that would hurt us (collectively) if everybody (individually) did it". But the ultra-individualistic insistance to not be part of society seems to be very trendy right now, and is usally made by people who rely on society to provide everything to them in ways they aren't even aware about.
I dont like the choice to hamstring millions of businesses and individuals who need legitimate work trucks from having a cheap and reliable option when those trucks would not be even close to the most dangerous thing on the road.
Why? Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. I do not need to proof an axiom someone else set up for the sake of discussion.
Now you could argue that safety standards are discoupled from actual accident numbers (something I have never seen evidence for), but that is a different argument and thus the burden of proof that this is in fact the case is on you.
You assumed it failed some specific standards, is the problem. That was not part of the premise. It might have failed something completely different.
>The myth of the sub-$25,000 electric vehicle has been around for more than 10 years now,
Equinox EV is MSRP 33.6K before 7.5 tax rebate. Looks and sounds like a decent modern compact SUV.
Of course, we are talking about a car that doesn't exist yet. Who knows what the facts will be once it does.
Can you actually build an EV like that, conforming to all regulations, with significant cost reduction?
Do people actually want less screens or do they just say that? Is customization a road to profitability?(VWs ID.1 concept has a similar idea to lower entry price, by making several upgrades user installable, so they can be bought over time.
This is obviously a US only car and the US is very lacking in EV adoption. Will this sell in significant numbers?
Can you actually make it cheaply? Rivian is notoriously unprofitable and making cheap cars is, far, far harder than making expensive cars.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/touchscreens
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/features/automakers-reth...
In either case stated preference and revealed preference are different things.
I said it was an open question and the company was betting on peoples stated preferences being identical to their revealed ones.
I never "demanded" anything. I just said that the articles you posted were irrelevant to the question, as physical buttons and large displays can exist at the same time.
Not my articles.
I am not sure it's safe to associate wanting tactile controls equates to not wanting a clear screen for useful information. Like a backup camera.
That is just for the base model. There is an option for an electric window opener.
It is also not a finished product yet so wait and see what actually becomes of this. The modularity is nice along with the promise of easy to install upgrades and so forth.
Delivering on all those customizable options though may be easier said than done.
I'm not optimistic.
Though maybe people can open-source hardware a DIY solution that involves some servos, a control circuit, & 3D printing.
For example,
It costs the company 10 dollars, and that 100 out of 110 people will purchase the upgrade for $20. That is $100 profit. Maybe the company also finds that 80 of those 110 people would also buy the same upgrade for $150 and yields like $11,200 in profit.
So it makes sense for the company, the persons running it, and the investors in the company to have the markup as high as it will maximize their profits.
> lack of profit when I said "anywhere near".
Sorry, to me I interpret markup to be assumed as double the cost but would not consider that "near" cost.
And absolute profit matters too. For a cheap enough part, a higher percentage is okay.
> It costs the company 10 dollars, and that 100 out of 110 people will purchase the upgrade for $20. That is $100 profit. Maybe the company also finds that 80 of those 110 people would also buy the same upgrade for $150 and yields like $11,200 in profit.
> So it makes sense for the company, the persons running it, and the investors in the company to have the markup as high as it will maximize their profits.
Yeah, and screw them.
Nickle and diming is bad and anyone doing it should feel bad.
Americans complain about the lack of affordable cars, but can't be bothered to buy anything with less than 4 doors and AWD and 20 inch wheels. So good luck to these guys.
Absolutely. Only one vehicle here has electric windows but that car was given to us. The other 6 vehicles are hand crank.
Rather than remembering the exact right amount of pressure for that mode on the switch
That depends a bit on models - there are various cars you can buy that don't have various modes of pressure - there's only a single mode, and the window stops moving when you let go of the switch.
In my experience, cranks are relatively complicated mechanical linkages, failed quite regularly and were sometimes not easy to repair.
OTOH, I've never seen an electronic opener fail since the 80's. Yes, sometimes they don't have the torque to open a window when it's iced closed, but that's an advantage, not a disadvantage -- the ability to put a lot of torque on a manual opener was the cause of many failures.
A couple of articles on the Slate have also pointed out that electric openers are cheaper than manual ones.
I totally get that some people's use-cases necessitate 300+ mile range, touchscreens, infotainment, DIN slots, four passengers plus a bunch of sheets of plywood, whatever. But why complain about the existence of a truck that doesn't meet your requirements if so many existing electric trucks already meet all of those requirements? Isn't it OK if other people want something different?
Not worth devoting any brain cycles to this thing if it’s that far out still given how fast the situation in the US is changing.
US consumer EVs mostly use batteries from LG Energy Solution, Panasonic, and SK On.
It's a truck. I want a bare-bones compact EV.
Whatever happened to economy cars? I want a Corolla or a Civic-(hatchback if you must)-style EV. But, you know, before the screens.
Buying a used car presupposes the ability to service it.
I bet they have more than half the original range, so I don't have to consider a new battery at all.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...
Idle draw/phantom drain of 5-10% a day seems like a common complaint with Teslas as well:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43314781
I personally don't want to be left holding the bag on a used battery since I like the option traveling long distance without stopping, but obviously it's your choice.
Yes, but I don't think it's enough to affect this comparison.
> I personally don't want to be left holding the bag on a used battery since I like the option traveling long distance without stopping, but obviously it's your choice.
The point is we're comparing against a car that has 150 miles of range brand new, 120 or less by the time you'd replace its battery. A Tesla battery at 60% is still better.
> Idle draw/phantom drain of 5-10% a day seems like a common complaint with Teslas as wel
That's a more serious problem, among many others. I'm not advocating one way or the other, just focusing on range.
Like anything used, or new, what you'll get is random. In general, Tesla seems to have their batteries sorted out compared to other manufacturers, but you can be unlucky.
The accuracy of range varies a bit, like most cars. If you have your foot in it, you'll do worse, and if you drive efficiently you'll do better.
But I'd want that car to be under $15k. That car doesn't exist, at least not in the US, so I'm still on an old ICE.
My current car is worth at most $5k, and I spend maybe $500/yr on gas.
My wife uses it for commuting and it's our standard "run to town" car. We have an ICE vehicle for trips.
Absolutely would buy again.
GP is pointing out that anything less than 300 is not practical, and they're not wrong. 150 miles, in particular, is just too low to be used for anything other than a basic commuter vehicle. It's useless on highways (try driving I-70 through KS in this thing) and if you change job sites more than once, you're likely to run out of range in one work day. Traveling between cities is going to be unreliable if you're not able to stop and charge at your destination. Live in Colorado Springs and want to go to Denver? You probably have to stop and charge before coming home.
we're also talking in raw miles, straight line, no hills, decent weather. I'm in a hilly city that gets to -30C on the regular, and these factors could turn 150 miles in to 75 pretty fast.
That's 2x the average daily distance driven, 4x if you do it back and forth. This is more like a cheap utility truck for day to day things, not a thing you want to travel in for hours at 65mph
If you have other reqs by all means, pay up. But don’t force the cost on everyone else.
Additionally range dictates how often you have to charge. This does not matter if you can easily charge at home, but when you have to do it at public infrastructure it is obviously a hassle, which is increased with lack of range.
The SUV is in all likelihood quite uncomfortable, as it has to fit into the surrounding pickup.
A small affordable truck works great as a commuter and picking up supplies from a hardware store for home improvement.
Not if it has two seats and you want to carry more than two people.
>picking up supplies from a hardware store for home improvement.
I don't remember where I heard it. But it was something like "most people buy cars for reasons least likely to happen". If you aren't using your bed daily you bought the wrong car. Buy a trailer if you need to go to a hardware store once a month.
Then you don't want a small truck.
> If you aren't using your bed daily you bought the wrong car.
Plenty of cars have a second row of seats that are not used daily too. I guess they bought the wrong car as well.
Plus not a lot of cars have trailer hitches...
Yes, that was my point.
>Plenty of cars have a second row of seats that are not used daily too. I guess they bought the wrong car as well.
Cars with only two seats are in almost all cases more expensive. To buy a pickup you pay extra, to get 4 seats you don't.
What you personally need I have no idea nor was my reply pertaining to that.
Gain, people do not buy cars they need. They specifically buy cars for situations they will never find themselves in.
Your scenario here makes even less sense because most cars do not come with a trailer hitch (trucks on other hand...), you're buying another thing (which lowers that this is supposed to be an "affordable" EV), you have to renew registration for the trailer, and have a place on top of your vehicle to store it.
A truck bed is nice to have sometimes. You can quickly throw things in it (like plywood, a new large flat screen, bicycles, fishing gear, a dead deer, etc). You don't have to hookup a trailer or fiddle with wiggling things between doors and so forth.
Such as commuting to & from work. But I imagine you believe that is the least likely thing to ever happen to a person. Driving to and from work.
I say this as an EV owner btw
Consider for example a very long road trip, such as a drive from Los Angeles to New York which is around 2800 miles. Suppose Alice has a 200 mile range EV and Bob has a 300 mile range EV. Assume their cars both charge at 300 miles/hour.
What effects will the range difference have on their trips?
• If DC EV charging stations are too far apart the trip might not be feasible for Alice.
• Assuming DC EV stations are not too far apart for Alice, then she will have to stop to charge more often.
• Assuming both start fully charged, and during the trip they drive until 10% and then charge to 80% then Alice will drive 180 miles until her first recharge, and then recharge every 140 miles. Bob will drive 270 miles until his first recharge, and then recharge every 210 miles.
• Alice will have to recharge 20 times. Bob will have to recharge 13 times. That works out to be a stop about every 2 hours of driving for Alice and a stop every 3 hours of driving for Bob.
OK, that is a lot more stops for Alice. But lets look at the time spent stopped rather than the number of stops.
• Alice first stops with 2620 miles left to go. Her car recharges at 300 miles/hour, which means she needs 8h 44m of total charge time.
• Bob first stops with 2530 miles left to go. His car recharging at 300 miles/hour needs a total charge time of 8h 26m.
Let's assume the each charge stop adds 5 minutes of delay beyond the actual charging time. Alice stops 7 times more than Bob so has 35 more minutes of delay. Add that to the 18 minutes more Alice spends actually charging and we have Bob gets to New York 53 minutes ahead of Alice.
Suppose Alice's car could charge faster than Bob's? Say 500 miles/hour? Then she would only spend 5h 15m charging. That's 3h 11m less charging time than Bob. She'd still have 35 minutes of delay from more frequent charging but even with that she'd beat Bob to New York by 2h 36m.
This suggests that for long road trips charging rate may be more more important than range, as long as range is sufficient to let you reach DC charging stations.
People who complain about screens are usually not complaining about that but rather about common functionality that used to be a single physical button now is buried deep inside a buggy menu system.
Car screens and I don't get on. At all. For backing up, what works for me is a full check first and directly viewing while backing up, augmenting with mirrors.
Eyes-on is me being as safe as I can possibly be.
The Full-Check part is what prevents that.
I also back-in to park. Pulling out compounds the safety.
I back into spaces almost exclusively. reason: I see that I can do it when I arrive, and realize that exiting forward will be a breeze regardless of the future conditions (you are backing into an empty space, and forwarding into a space with other moving cars that are out of your control).
it's one forward lap and one backward lap, same difference, in addition to which I find steerability/maneuverability is much better with the "steering" wheels in the back, because after you get the forward aligned to enter the slot, you can simply steer away after that.
>90% of the people who back in take much longer to back-in than they'd take to back-out because it takes them more time to back up with any accuracy.
Head-in to the spot is just as fast as head-out into the lane because most people don't have any trouble going forward.
The result is that back-in is a net time loss.
Reducing the chance of a car accident by like 5% would be incredibly beneficial to everyone.
Safety. Several organizations that have automotive fleets recommend it for that. Pulling in backwards is safer because everybody can see everybody while that is occurring. Pulling out forwards is safer because you have much wider field of view and you have to do less maneuvering.
Liability. If you are pulling out forward and someone doing 50 in the parking lot hits you, you have a much better chance of them being at fault. If you get hit backing up, it is almost always considered your fault irrespective of how stupid the other driver is being.
You _can_ do it without a camera, but the camera saves a ton of time.
The last tow truck I took a ride on (modern, tilt tray, full lifts, etc) was operated by the driver who happily and easily juggled two phones ... he had one in a cradle, the other hand held, used the cradle one to look up routes, bid for jobs, and general map operations.
At lights or when refueling he was talking on the free phone while cross referencing via text and map searches on the cradle phone.
Additionally the truck console had screens for reversing, etc.
Point being .. we live in a world where it reasonable to have physical control, screen free, relative "dumb" vehicle that still has a diagnostics bus and rear cameras and distance sensors that can accessed via the drivers phone or tablet.
With cable | wifi and auth or some kind the operators smart device can upload music to the cars sound system and the vehicle can return infomation and visuals from sensors .. perhaps.
I have a 1990 Hilux pickup working just fine as my daily driver, but it cost about US$20K to convert and with only 100KM range it is only effective as a second vehicle. Good news though is with a couple of future battery swaps it will only get better and should outlive me.