If you drive an EV, you have probably heard one argument over and over: Whatever you pay for the car, you'll save money charging it.

That can certainly be true if you charge at home, particularly if you have access to inexpensive off-peak electricity. But once you depend on public fast chargers, the math can look very different.

Put $40 or $50 worth of gasoline into an efficient RAV4, and you're buying hundreds of miles of driving range

On a recent episode of “The Drive,” my co-host Karl Brauer told me about charging a Hyundai Ioniq 5 N at a Level 3 charger. It cost him about $50.

Within 24 hours, Karl filled up his 2023 Dodge Demon 170 with E85. The bill was $47.

Yes, you read that correctly. It cost him more to charge the Hyundai than to fill a 1,025-horsepower Dodge Demon.

Power fail

That's just one experience, and charging prices vary enormously. But it illustrates something EV buyers need to understand: Electricity isn't free, and public fast charging can be surprisingly expensive.

One Chevrolet Bolt owner recently learned that lesson in spectacular fashion.

He plugged into a public charger at a Hyundai dealership and ended up with a bill for $414. The explanation, according to the report Karl and I discussed, was an extraordinary pricing structure for drivers outside the dealership's charging program: $5 per minute and $5 per kilowatt-hour.

After the driver complained, the charging company intervened and reduced the bill to about $14. So no, $414 isn't a normal price to charge a Chevrolet Bolt. But the episode demonstrates why drivers need to pay attention to what a charger costs before plugging in.

Buzzkill

Even at ordinary public fast-charging rates, the comparison with gasoline isn't always what EV advocates would have you believe.

Karl looked up public fast-charging prices before the show and found rates generally running around 40 to 55 cents per kilowatt-hour. Industry data bears out his informal survey. Paren, which tracks the U.S. fast-charging network, put the average price of public DC fast charging at 53.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the second quarter of 2026.

Now compare that with an efficient gasoline vehicle. Karl used the Toyota RAV4 as an example. Put $40 or $50 worth of gasoline into an efficient RAV4 and you're buying hundreds of miles of driving range — while filling the tank takes minutes rather than waiting for a battery to charge.

A hybrid can make the comparison even more interesting.

Run the numbers by the mile. An EV getting around three miles per kilowatt-hour would cost roughly $18 to drive 100 miles at that average fast-charging rate. A 2026 RAV4 Hybrid rated at 43 mpg combined would cost about $7 to travel the same distance with gasoline at $3 a gallon — and about $9.30 even at $4 a gallon.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Private plug

This doesn't mean an EV is always more expensive to operate. If you own a home, plug your vehicle in overnight, and have inexpensive electricity, the economics can be very favorable. Some utilities also offer substantially cheaper off-peak rates.

But that's not everybody's situation.

Plenty of people live in apartments or condos where they can't simply plug in overnight. Others take long trips and have to use public fast chargers along the way. For those drivers, the price displayed at the charging station matters every bit as much as the price displayed at a gas station.

And electricity prices aren't uniform. They vary by location, utility, time of day, charging network, and sometimes even the particular charger you're using.

That's why I don't buy the blanket claim that an EV is automatically cheaper to fuel than a gasoline car. You have to do the math for your car, your electricity rates, and your driving habits.

Before buying an EV, find out what you actually pay per kilowatt-hour at home. Then look at the public fast-charging networks you're likely to use and check their prices. Compare those costs with the fuel economy of the gasoline or hybrid vehicle you're considering.

You may discover that charging at home saves you plenty of money.

But if you're depending on public fast charging, don't assume you're getting a bargain just because there's no gasoline going into the car.

Tesla is winning the self-driving race — so why is Washington trying to slow it down?

Washington has a messaging problem on self-driving cars — and it’s becoming harder to ignore.

Regulators and politicians keep telling Americans that autonomous vehicles are the future. Safer roads. Fewer accidents. Smarter mobility. That’s the pitch. But at the same time, they’re turning up the heat on the one company that has already put the technology into millions of vehicles: Tesla.

Tesla has millions of vehicles generating data. Most competitors don’t. That raises a bigger question: control.

If this technology is so important, why does the most widely deployed system keep getting singled out?

Target: Tesla

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has escalated its probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, taking a closer look at incidents involving the technology. The focus is on low-visibility conditions — fog, glare, dust — where camera-based systems can struggle.

That’s a legitimate concern. But it’s not unique to Tesla. Every system on the road today — whether it’s Super Cruise, BlueCruise, or any lane-centering technology — faces similar limitations.

Yet Tesla remains under the most consistent scrutiny.

That’s where this starts to look less like routine safety oversight and more like selective pressure. Regulators are right about one thing: These systems are not fully autonomous. Drivers still need to stay engaged. That hasn’t changed. So why the escalation now?

Mixed messages

At the same time Washington is warning consumers to stay alert, it’s also pushing policies and funding that accelerate autonomous vehicle deployment. That’s the disconnect. You can’t fast-track a technology and undermine confidence in it at the same time.

And while U.S. regulators focus on Tesla, real-world issues elsewhere are raising broader questions.

In Wuhan, China, more than 100 robotaxis operated by Baidu’s Apollo Go reportedly stalled in traffic following a system-wide glitch, creating disruption across active lanes. No injuries were reported, but the incident highlighted the risks of systems operating without a human fallback.

Waymo problems

We’ve seen similar issues closer to home. In San Francisco, service disruptions — including outages and connectivity problems — have temporarily sidelined Waymo’s robotaxis. In China, Apollo Go vehicles have struggled in complex environments like construction zones — situations that still challenge autonomous systems more than human drivers.

Here’s the part that often gets overlooked: Tesla’s system still requires a human in the loop. Robotaxi services are designed to operate without one.

When a driver-assist system makes a mistake, a person can step in. When a fully autonomous fleet runs into problems, those issues can scale quickly across the system.

That’s not just a technical issue. It’s a scalability risk.

So again — why does Tesla draw so much attention? Because it’s visible. Because it’s ahead in deployment. And because it took a different path.

Setting the pace

Tesla didn’t wait for perfect conditions or full regulatory alignment. It put its system into the real world and improved it through over-the-air updates, collecting large amounts of driving data along the way. That’s a lead competitors are still trying to close.

But that approach doesn’t fit neatly into traditional regulatory models. Regulators are used to slower, more predictable development cycles. Tesla operates more like a software company — iterating continuously and improving through real-world data. That forces regulators to react instead of setting the pace.

According to NHTSA findings, recent updates may not fully resolve visibility-related issues. That matters. It shows the technology is still evolving. But that’s true across the entire industry. Edge cases — weather, lighting, unpredictable road conditions — remain unresolved challenges for every system on the road today.

The difference is scale. Tesla has millions of vehicles generating data. Most competitors don’t. That raises a bigger question: control. Autonomous vehicles aren’t just about convenience. They’re about data, infrastructure, and who ultimately controls mobility.

VCG/Getty Images

Backseat driver

Governments understand that. And they’re not just regulating for safety — they’re shaping the outcome.

That creates friction. Because innovation — especially software-driven innovation — moves faster than regulation ever will.

Tesla is pushing forward in real time. Washington is trying to catch up. And instead of offering clear, consistent rules, it’s sending mixed signals that confuse consumers and distort the market.

Meanwhile, global competition isn’t slowing down. China continues expanding robotaxi programs. U.S. companies like Waymo are scaling more cautiously. Partnerships involving Uber and Lyft are waiting in the wings. The race to define autonomous mobility is already underway — and it’s not just about technology. It’s about leadership.

If regulators are serious about safety, standards need to be applied evenly — not selectively against the most visible player. If autonomy is the future, policy should support innovation, not work against it. Right now, we’re getting mixed signals.

Until Washington decides what it actually wants, the future of self-driving cars won’t be shaped by technology alone — it will be shaped by policy.

The great Chinese EV hype: What the media isn’t telling you

For the past few years, a familiar narrative has taken hold in American automotive media: Chinese electric vehicles are about to reshape the global car market.

Reviewers highlight low prices, sleek interiors, and giant screens. Commentators talk about a coming wave of imports that could challenge American, European, and Japanese automakers. Some even point to BYD surpassing Tesla in global EV sales as proof the shift is already happening.

Some reports suggest a large number of brands could disappear, merge, or restructure in the coming years.

That all sounds compelling — until you ask a simple question: What does this actually mean for a buyer?

Because right now, most of these vehicles aren’t even for sale in the United States.

Tariffs and regulations keep them out. So a lot of this hype is based on overseas test drives and showroom impressions — not real ownership in North America.

And where these vehicles are being used, the story isn’t nearly as clean.

What happens in real-world driving

Cold weather is one of the first reality checks.

Like all EVs, Chinese EVs lose range in low temperatures — sometimes up to 30% to 40% of their range.

That’s not a small difference. That’s the difference between getting home comfortably and watching your battery percentage like a hawk.

Shorter range means more charging. Charging takes longer in the cold. And more energy goes to heating the battery and cabin instead of driving the car.

If you live somewhere with real winters, this isn’t theoretical. It’s your daily routine.

The problem with 'cool' features

A lot of the appeal here is design — flush door handles, fully electronic entry, big minimalist interiors.

It looks great in photos; a different story in real life.

Electronic door handles and latches depend on power and sensors. Lose power after a crash, or deal with freezing conditions, and those systems can fail or become harder to use. There have already been reports of handles sticking or not working properly in cold weather.

That’s the trade-off with adding complexity to basic functions.

And when something breaks, it’s not a simple fix. It’s usually more expensive, more specialized, and more time-consuming.

Here’s the bigger issue

The structure of China’s EV industry may matter more than any individual feature.

Over the past decade, government incentives fueled a wave of EV startups. Dozens of companies jumped in. A lot of them are now competing on price, trying to survive.

And not all of them will.

Analysts at firms like Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase expect consolidation. Some reports suggest a large number of brands could disappear, merge, or restructure in the coming years.

That’s not just industry chatter. That’s a real risk for buyers.

Because if the company behind your car disappears, what happens next?

Who provides software updates? Who supplies parts? Who services the vehicle?

That “great deal” doesn’t look so great if you can’t get support — or if resale value drops because buyers don’t trust the brand will still be around.

We’ve seen this before with failed automakers. The difference now is how dependent vehicles are on software.

Denver Post/Getty Images

Price isn’t the whole story

There’s no question Chinese automakers have pushed prices down in some markets.

But price is only part of the equation.

Many of these companies are operating on thin margins while spending heavily to stay competitive. That creates pressure — and in some cases, instability.

Some brands will make it. Companies like BYD and Geely have the scale.

Others won’t.

And you don’t get to choose which one you bought after the shakeout happens.

What American buyers actually care about

Even if these vehicles eventually reach the U.S., they’ll be competing on more than price.

American buyers care about reliability, service access, resale value, and long-term support.

That’s not something you figure out in a quick test drive or a YouTube review.

That’s built over time — through dealer networks, parts availability, and how a company stands behind its product.

And that’s where newer players still have something to prove.

Don't buy the hype

Chinese EVs are real. Some are competitive. Some are impressive.

But the idea that they’re about to flood the U.S. market and take over leaves out a lot.

They face trade barriers, infrastructure challenges, and a major shakeout at home.

For buyers, the takeaway is simple: Don’t buy the hype — buy what actually works for your life.

Look at how the vehicle performs in real conditions. Look at who’s going to support it. Look at what it’s likely to be worth in a few years.

Because in the end, the question isn’t how a car looks in a headline, but how it holds up when you’re the one paying for it.

GM’s electric gamble is failing — but Barra won’t hit the brakes

The electric vehicle bubble has burst. Consumers have emphatically rejected EVs as nothing more than a niche car with limited range, minimal utility, terrible resale value, and time-consuming charging hassles.

This consumer rejection began long before President Donald Trump returned to the White House and started repealing Biden-era regulations that essentially instituted a de facto EV mandate. In addition to these critical repeals, Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act just eliminated the $7,500 per unit federal tax credit on each new EV sold in the U.S. effective September 30, 2025.

It’s long overdue for the General Motors’ board to put the EV distraction behind them. If Mary Barra won’t do it, then they need to find a CEO who will.

Other than Tesla, auto manufacturers have been hemorrhaging red ink on their EV ventures — and that was when they could pad the sale of each unit with $7,500 in federal incentives. Legacy automakers have been taking a financial bath on their EV programs. Many are starting to back away from their electric ambitions and pivot back to gasoline-powered vehicles that consumers actually want to buy, including hybrids.

For some manufacturers, however, it may be too late.

GM’s electric obsession

Blaze Media contributor Lauren Fix recently warned on her “Car Coach Reports” podcast that auto manufacturers might not survive the failed “EV transition.”

Yet amidst the carnage of the EV collapse, the CEO of General Motors, Mary Barra, remains unyielding in her commitment to an all-electric future. Sadly, unless GM’s board steps in soon, she may be dragging the entire company over a cliff.

It’s fair to ask at this point, “Who is Barra working for?” She clearly isn’t serving GM’s customers, dealers, or shareholders. Drivers aren’t buying EVs. Dealers can’t sell them. And the EV distraction is dragging down the stock price.

During the Biden administration, Barra pledged to completely purge the GM lineup of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. That’s a direct slap in the face to the company’s loyal customer base — especially truck buyers — who overwhelmingly prefer gas engines.

Now that Donald Trump is back in the White House, the Biden-era regulatory hammer that pushed automakers like GM toward EVs is gone. What, then, is motivating Barra to remain steadfast in her EV commitment?

As recently as late May — four months into Trump’s second term — Barra told the Wall Street Journal, “We still believe in an all-EV future. I think EVs are fundamentally better.” She added, “So I see a path to all EV. It will depend on how much we get the infrastructure ready. But I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Unfortunately, outside of their niche as a daily commuter car for those with a charger at home, EVs have barely any utility at all. They are not “better” in any respect than a multi-purpose, gasoline-powered vehicle that can drive anywhere, at any time, for any distance — without charging hassles.

Most consumers know that. GM’s dealers definitely know that.

So, how does GM still have a CEO who doesn’t?

On “Car Coach Reports,” Lauren Fix speculated that Barra’s public EV commitment may not reflect GM’s actual intentions. Maybe she’s just covering for a busted product pipeline — trying to save face while GM begins its years-long pivot toward hybrids behind the scenes. If that’s true, the best-case scenario is that the CEO is lying to shareholders and dealers — it’s a very bad look.

Whether or not Barra is being honest about her intentions for an all-EV future, GM’s website still has a “sustainability” tab which reads, “We aim to achieve an all-electric, zero emissions world while advancing an equitable and inclusive transition to our carbon-neutral future.”

It might as well read: “We’d rather drive off a cliff in the name of a net-zero future than keep building the profitable cars and trucks Americans actually want.”

Investors call Barra’s bluff

Wall Street is finally taking notice — as well it should. When EV hype peaked in June 2021, GM stock was trading around $63 per share at its height. Today, it’s down 15%.

Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is up 50% since June 2021. Put another way: $1,000 in GM stock back then is now worth $850. That same $1,000 in the S&P 500 would be worth $1,500. That’s a 75% gap — and GM investors are the losers.

During a recent earnings call to discuss Q2 2025 results, a Morgan Stanley analyst finally confronted Barra about the elephant in the room: “How does GM expect to be profitable with EVs when players like Tesla apparently cannot?”

Photo by UCG / Contributor via Getty Images

Tesla is facing stiff headwinds with a 13% drop in sales and a 16% drop in profits for Q2. Even with the tax credits still in place, Tesla’s per-unit profit is only around $3,000. But those tax credits are about to vanish with the impending elimination of the $7,500 per unit federal tax credit. Moreover, Tesla is also about to lose another revenue stream: regulatory credits, worth about $1,500 per vehicle, paid to Tesla by non-EV manufacturers to meet emissions rules.

In summary, Tesla will be losing up to $9,000 per unit in revenue sources against a profit of $3,000 per unit — an unsustainable path for a sustainable car company. If Tesla can’t make it work, what chance does GM have?

The imminent EV reckoning

Barra had no real answer. Just vague talk about “manufacturing optimization.” She won’t admit to the writing on the wall — that General Motors has no path to profitability selling electric vehicles.

It’s long overdue for the General Motors’ board to put the EV distraction behind them. If Mary Barra won’t do it, then they need to find a CEO who will.

$8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda

California drivers, brace yourselves. Starting July 1, 2025, you could be paying 65 cents more per gallon — pushing gas prices to a staggering $8 by 2026.

Why? Because California regulators, fresh off the repeal of the federal electric vehicle mandate, are going full speed ahead with stricter clean fuel standards — which critics say amount to a hidden tax and a deliberate attempt to force drivers into electric vehicles.

'This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.'

Back in November, the California Air Resources Board — an unelected group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — voted to update the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The new rules penalize gasoline and diesel producers and reward low-carbon fuel options like EV charging infrastructure.

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

CARB’s goal is to cut the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. Fuel producers that exceed carbon limits must purchase credits, a cost that gets passed straight to you at the pump. While regulators tout benefits like reduced air pollution and $4 billion in new clean energy investments, experts project these rules will raise gas prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon next year — and possibly $1.50 more by 2035.

Meanwhile, two major California refineries are shutting down, reducing capacity by over 8%. That means less supply and even higher prices. Some forecasts, including one from the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, warn of $8 gas by 2026.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calls it “blatant price gouging" by an "unelected board of wealthy bureaucrats.” He’s filed a public records request to expose what he says is a coordinated effort to bypass voters and crush gas-powered mobility.

About climate — or control?

The timing of this update is no accident. It came just days after the 2024 election, ignoring nearly 13,000 Californians who petitioned for a delay. Republican Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the changes, warns that rural and working-class Californians can’t afford the hike.

Even after the Office of Administrative Law paused the plan in early 2025 due to procedural issues, CARB was given 120 days to revise and resubmit — keeping the threat alive.

The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

Despite growing backlash, CARB has refused to revise its original 47-cent cost estimate, even as outside experts warn it could be far higher. Climate economist Danny Cullenward slammed the board’s secrecy, saying it erodes public trust.

Jones put it more bluntly: “This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.”

California in charge?

California’s policies don’t stop at its borders. About a dozen other states — covering 35% of the U.S. population — have adopted its EV sales targets, including the 2035 gas vehicle ban. States like New York, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts are now weighing how to enforce similar goals without federal backup.

While none of these states has matched California’s aggressive LCFS update, many use credit-based emissions programs that punish traditional fuels. Meanwhile, California’s refinery closures could send regional gas prices up 10 to 20 cents, even in states that don’t adopt LCFS-style rules.

The result? A creeping increase in gas prices across the country, driven not by market forces but by regulatory agendas.

Not buying it

An AAA survey earlier this month found that 63% of Americans are unlikely to buy an EV, citing cost, insurance, and lack of charging stations. In California, where electricity rates are double the national average, even charging an EV isn’t much cheaper than filling a tank. With EV financing averaging $783 per month and $105 billion in taxpayer subsidies on the line, the current system favors wealthier households — while working families pay more for both gas and electricity.

And it’s not just pump prices. The added costs ripple through the economy — affecting groceries, shipping, manufacturing, and transportation. The combined impact of the LCFS hike, refinery closures, and a scheduled excise tax bump could raise gas prices by as much as 90 cents per gallon in 2025.

Meeting consumers, not mandates

The auto industry is responding to real-world demand — not government mandates. With the federal EV mandate repealed, manufacturers are shifting their focus to hybrids and fuel-efficient gas cars while scaling back some EV plans. While new EV factories are still being built, carmakers are hedging their bets, giving consumers more options, not fewer.

That’s a refreshing contrast to California’s top-down approach.

Freedom vs. forced transition

California defends its LCFS update as a critical step toward its 2045 net-zero target. But critics argue that the environmental benefits are exaggerated and the economic burden is real. EVs, for instance, release 26% more tire particulate pollution than gas cars, posing their own environmental risks.

And if gas really hits $8 per gallon, the state’s policies may not just be unaffordable — they’ll be unsustainable.

Whether you live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or a state following California’s lead, this is about more than gas. It’s about who decides how you live and what you drive. With the federal EV mandate off the table, it’s time to ask: Should unelected regulators in Sacramento get to control the fuel in your tank?

Taking back the wheel

Will lawmakers block the 65-cent hike? Will other states follow California’s lead? If you care about affordability and choice, now’s the time to make your voice heard. This isn’t just about a gallon of gas — it’s about the freedom to drive what works for you.

For more on this, check out my video here.

Georgia-made Ioniq 5 is the right EV for the land of the free

Last October, South Korean carmaker Hyundai fired up its brand-new $7.6 billion plant just west of Savannah, Georgia.

The first model to roll off the line? The 2025 version of the popular Ioniq 5 electric SUV.

Hyundai's Georgia plant already pushes out 300,000 cars a year. Thanks to Trump's planned 25% tariff on foreign cars, the company plans to increase capacity to 500,000.

As someone who just had a chance to test-drive one, let me tell you: The move to America has done it a world of good.

For one thing, the 2025 Ioniq 5 is looking a little more rugged these days — that is, if you spring for the new off-road XRT trim, designed for light off-roading.

Also new this year is a Tesla (NACS) charging port. This expands your charging options by something like 17,000 charging stations — good to know whether you're on a cross-country road trip or just taking the kids to soccer.

Hyundai's Georgia plant already pushes out 300,000 cars a year. Thanks to Trump's planned 25% tariff on foreign cars, the company plans to increase capacity to 500,000.

The local demand seems to be there. Last year, the Ioniq 5 was the second-best-selling EV in America not made by Tesla. After some time behind the wheel, I can see why.

Check out my full review below:

Is Volvo's new, American-made EX90 a Tesla killer?

Tesla's ludicrous mode — which takes you from 0 to 60 in as little as 2.5 seconds — isn't for everyone. Some of would happily dispense with a short-term boost in torque to have a comfortable, silent ride.

Until Elon Musk offers some kind of "leisure mode," there's always the new, American-made 2025 Volvo EX90, a fully electric premium 7-seat SUV.

You could hear a pin drop in the EX90's ultra-quiet cabin — just the serenity you need to lower stress levels and calm the beast inside. Unlike most of its battery-electric competitors, during acceleration, it does not pipe in a soundtrack that mimics an internal-combustion engine.

The EX90's commitment to safety might also ease some tension when you're behind the wheel. Volvo's new multi-camera driver-monitoring system includes a suite of lidar, radar, eight cameras, and 12 ultrasonic sensors that collaborate to enforce Volvo's "zero crash" intent for all Volvos.

A new computer-actuated dual-chamber air suspension helps the EX90 feel refined, flat, and planted. The computer allows for instantaneous reactions to road imperfections. The hydro-bushings in the front and rear axle enhance longitudinal damping, counteracting suspension-crashing sensations and creating a smooth ride.

A trick torque-vectoring system, new to Volvo, recognizably enhances agility in low-speed or low-traction situations and aids in takeoff performance. As for the suspension and the steering, you can choose soft or firm settings.

Exclusive Scandinavian modern design details add to the premium experience of an intelligent car. Inspired by the Swedish living room, the EX90 cabin showcases a modern, luxurious, and uncluttered interior design with high-quality Nordico or Wool Blend upholstery options.

The backlit bent wood veneers are Alvar Aalto-esque, clutter is vanquished, and storage is multifarious, with bins and cubbies, including a frunk, a handbag shelf beneath the center console, and a sub-compartment beneath the rear cargo floor.

A 14.5-inch screen in the middle controls virtually everything, including simple functions like adjusting the side mirrors and HVAC and opening the glovebox and trunk. The amazing Bowers & Wilkins/Abbey Road Studios premium audio system is most impressive and really stands out.

Volvo says it doesn't intend the EX90 to replace the existing gas-powered XC90; it will continue to produce the latter as long as there's demand. Both 2025 versions of the car will be manufactured in the Swedish automaker's state-of-the-art Ridgeville, South Carolina, plant.

The twin motor trim will run you $79,995 while the twin motor performance comes in at $84,995. American buyers qualify for the $7500 EV tax credit. Our test car was fully loaded and came in at $93,345.

Pros :

Elegant interior styling
Google-based technology features
Strong acceleration
Amazing audio system

Cons:

The EX90 is not a driver's car.
No real leather option — it would increase the luxury
Glove box opening separate / manual
Rear-view camera

To see the EX90 in action — and to get a better sense of how it stacks up to competitors like the Tesla Model X and the KIA EV9, check out my test-drive video below:

- YouTube youtu.be

Volvo kills plans for all-electric lineup by 2030 amid industry shift

Volvo has declared that it has abandoned plans to sell only electric cars by the end of the decade. The Swedish auto manufacturer is the latest carmaker to walk back ambitious electric vehicle plans.

Volvo was one of the first automakers to promise an electric-only lineup. However, Volvo has scrapped its plan to sell only electric vehicles – just three years after it pledged it would "become a fully electric car company by 2030."

'It is clear that the transition to electrification will not be linear, and customers and markets are moving at different speeds of adoption.'

Volvo said the company needed to "adjust its electrification ambitions due to changing market conditions and customer demands."

"Going forward, Volvo Cars aims for 90 to 100 percent of its global sales volume by 2030 to consist of electrified cars, meaning a mix of both fully electric and plug-in hybrid models – in essence, all cars with a cord," the car company stated in a press release shared on Wednesday.

Volvo noted, "This replaces the company’s previous ambition for its lineup to be fully electric by 2030."

“We are resolute in our belief that our future is electric,” said Jim Rowan, CEO of Volvo Cars. “An electric car provides a superior driving experience and increases possibilities for using advanced technologies that improve the overall customer experience."

Rowan admitted, "However, it is clear that the transition to electrification will not be linear, and customers and markets are moving at different speeds of adoption. We are pragmatic and flexible, while retaining an industry-leading position on electrification and sustainability.”

Volvo blamed "slower than expected rollout of charging infrastructure, withdrawal of government incentives in some markets and additional uncertainties created by recent tariffs on EVs in various markets" for the lower demand for electric vehicles.

Volvo Cars proclaimed there is a "need for stronger and more stable government policies to support the transition to electrification."

The car company said it expects to feature 50% to 60% of its lineup as electrified vehicles by 2025.

Volvo said the share of fully electric cars in its lineup stood at 26% during the second quarter of 2024, adding that this is the highest level among its premium peers. The car company stated that EVs and hybrid vehicles account for 48% of its lineup.

Volvo is owned by the Chinese car company Geely. Volvo and Geely also own the Polestar EV brand.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Polestar had suffered $242.3 million in operating losses for the second quarter. Polestar admitted that revenue had dropped 17% to $574.9 million due to “lower global volumes and higher discounts.”

Bloomberg reported, "Once a vanguard of the electric-car movement, Polestar is grappling with high costs and increasing competition from new players, including from China. At the same time, consumer demand for EVs is waning amid high inflation and the end of subsidies in key markets, forcing some carmakers to offer discounts."

Volvo's reversal of ambitious goals of electric vehicles comes at a time when other automakers have dialed back their commitments to EVs.

As Blaze News previously reported last month, Ford Motor Company announced measures to scale back multiple EV plans. Ford killed plans to manufacture a large, three-row electric SUV. The American auto manufacturer also developed a new plan to focus on smaller, cheaper EVs as the future, while hybrid technology will be utilized for powering larger vehicles. Ford will also reduce future capital expenditure plans on pure EVs from 40% to 30%. Ford's EV division is reportedly on pace to lose as much as $5.5 billion this year.

Three years ago, Mercedes-Benz proclaimed it would feature an all-electric car lineup in 2030 "where market conditions allow." However, in February, Mercedes backpedaled and indicated it would continue to manufacture internal combustion engine cars and hybrids well past 2030.

"Spurred on by weaker than expected demand for EVs, this about-face was the most recent indication that the global car industry is growing increasingly pessimistic about an all-electric future," according to Forbes.

Reuters reported in June that General Motors downgraded its 2024 EV production forecast from 300,000 units to 250,000.

Porsche watered down its plans to become an all-electric car company in July.

"The transition to electric cars is taking longer than we thought five years ago," Porsche said in a statement. "Our product strategy is set up such that we could deliver over 80% of our vehicles as all electric in 2030 – dependent on customer demand and the development of electromobility."

According to Edmunds sales data, new car sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. were only 6.8% in May 2024.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NASCAR introduces electric vehicle as part of commitment to 'decarbonization' and 'sustainable' operations by 2035

NASCAR revealed an electric vehicle prototype at a Chicago event and spoke about its plans to "decarbonize" operations.

The racing organization showed off its new EV at the Chicago Street Race and published materials riddled with activist jargon regarding sustainability goals that have been heard ad nauseum from large corporations.

Touting a mission to strengthen its communities by advancing sustainability, NASCAR partnered with Swedish-Swiss electrical equipment manufacturer ABB.

'We actually have the opportunity to evaluate not just the battery electric part, but then also the crossover vehicle part.'

The beloved American stock car league's commitments to electrification echo those of the most basic plans put forth by limitless jurisdictions and manufacturers, stating that it would decarbonize its facilities and reach a net-zero carbon footprint in its core operations by 2035.

Simply put, while NASCAR said it will still use combustion engines in its cars, it would like to be able to tell people that its nonracing operations are sustainable.

"The combustion engine is our core product, and that will remain so for the coming future," Riley Nelson, NASCAR's head of sustainability, told CNN.

NASCAR hopes to have 100% renewable electricity at its racetracks and facilities by 2028 and also to have on-site electric vehicle charging stations. The partnership with ABB will supply the infrastructure needed at operational sites.

The EV itself, the ABB NASCAR EV Prototype, debuted in 2022 and was an attempt to make race cars look more similar to cars on the street, NASCAR said in a press release.

The car has three electric motors (one front, two rear) and regenerative braking. The braking is when an electric vehicle slows its speed to revert surplus energy back to the battery to allow for a longer driving time. This can be an irritating feature of a commercial electric vehicle, as certain driving modes will automatically put the brakes on the EV when it is at very low speeds, such as in a car wash.

"The pilot programs that we've implemented within operations of our core business, and then also the events, has been going really well," NASCAR's Nelson continued. She added the company is "still in the early stages of this journey."

NASCAR’s senior vice president of racing development, John Probst, told CNN that some fans will reject the very idea of electric racing and said that the gas cars are in no immediate danger of extinction. But like Nelson, Probst did not say they will never be eliminated.

The company reportedly has plans to change its fuel to become more sustainable in the future as well, despite currently using 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol.

"We actually have the opportunity to evaluate not just the battery electric part, but then also the crossover vehicle part," Probst said. "So it may be that one or both of these will become something in the future for us."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Actor Kevin Dillon's Tesla automatically brakes inside car wash, causing 4-car accident

Actor Kevin Dillon was allegedly the cause of a four-car fender bender at an automatic carwash with a track system in Los Angeles.

The beloved "Entourage" actor was reportedly seen at the drive-through car wash in the Los Angeles area, where his electric vehicle automatically braked in the middle of the car wash, causing several cars behind him to collide with each other.

Police said that Dillon, who drives a Tesla, caused a ripple effect for other unlucky drivers when he reportedly lifted up from his seat, and his car stopped in place on the car wash track.

This could have been caused by any number of features in Tesla programming that automatically apply the brakes as a safety feature. The car engages "stopping mode" if both the accelerator and brake pedals are released at a "very low speed."

There are a series of different options for the stopping mode, but the most likely feature that engaged on Dillon, according to the Tesla online owner's manual, is the "hold" feature.

The feature "maximizes range and reduces brake wear by continuing to provide regenerative braking at speeds lower than with the Creep and Roll settings," the manual reads.

"When Model 3 stops, the brakes are automatically applied without you having to put your foot on the brake pedal. Whether stopped on a flat surface or a hill, Vehicle Hold keeps the brake applied, provided your foot remains off the accelerator and brake pedals."

It is likely the latter portion of the hold feature initiated if Dillon took both feet off the brake and accelerator pedals.

However, the unexpected stop could have been caused by the "regenerative braking" feature, as well.

The manual states that when a driver's foot is off the accelerator, but the Tesla is moving, the system automatically "slows down the vehicle and feeds any surplus power back to the Battery." This is done to increase the driving range of the EV by conserving battery power.

TMZ reported that the car wash actually had a sign that advised Tesla owners that any sudden seat movements could shift their car into park and therefore cause potential injury or damage to vehicles.

The Tesla manual did not appear to mention a feature about the car automatically stopping if the driver lifted up from their seat.

Additionally, one person involved in the slight collision complained about discomfort, and, as such, law enforcement was reportedly called to take an accident report.

TMZ did not receive a response from Dillon.