The tariff route is what happened in the 1970s under the "chicken tax", which still exists today to protect the US light truck industry, and is pretty much the reason why SUVs reign supreme in the US market. SUVs are classified as "light trucks", which has caused a Galapagozation of the US car industry/market.

Why is decimating our local car industry a problem? Why not build something else with the resources if cars are now a cheap commodity?

Like many things, it seems like a combination of all of those would work better than any single one, depending on the actual goal. If the goal is to help drive EV adoption, tariffs that raise foreign prices to the desired price point, rather than simply being more expensive, would provide competition to the America companies, perhaps driving improvements. Subsidies would help with labor and ensure the company keeps driving the right direction. Improvements to products can help sell "American made" as a good thing.

None of these strategies seem to address the other technological issue hiding beneath the surface, which is that EVs are fundamentally simpler (electric vs combustion motor) and hence should be cheaper than ICE cars when manufacturing pipelines are mature. This would result in lower profits across the car industry even in the absence of international competition. No US manufacturer so far has actually tried to build EVs cheaper than gas cars at scale (Tesla made a little noise and then got distracted), while Chinese manufacturers have no need to worry about cannibalizing the comparatively small domestic ICE market.

Letting the industry guide policymaking seems like it could lead to regulatory capture preventing EVs from reaching the (low!) price points that they should reach. Already the two-track emissions standards and chicken tax make cars too big and the "arms race" of having a bigger car than everyone else to stay safe (at the expense of others) prevents meaningful reform.

The playbook to study is South Korea. Protectionism and subsidies for nascent and transitioning industries with a clear ex ante timeline to full liberalization to force international competitiveness. Absent the latter, American car companies’ inefficiencies in design and labour structure have zero incentive to change, and American consumers get stuck with shitty, expensive products.

For cars, this would mean federally-guaranteed loans up to the median value of a plant for any manufacturer with any production base worldwide (the plant to be built or retrofitted in America, of course) plus an N-year (N set to the expected payback period for a new or retrofitted plant) tariff schedule starting very high before decreasing to virtually zero. Maybe also pass a special bankruptcy regime to expedite the redistribution of assets for those who fail to really send the message that failure is an option.

This seems to fill a useful niche, but may be too downscale. Remember the Tata Nano.[1] Tata built a basic car with a price below 1 lahk, but it didn't sell.

In the US, there's Slate, which claims to be making a small electric pickup truck. "Preorders will start on June 24, 2026. First deliveries are slated for late 2026." [2] Price in the US$20K range, they claim. Claimed range is 150m with the base model battery. A larger battery is available. It's America's answer to the kei car. If it ships and keeps shipping.

Detroit got way too much into the "more car per car" thing. Chevrolet once had the slogan "basic transportation". They lost sight of that market. The giant pickups are just silly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

[2] https://www.slate.auto/en

A lot of the underlying EV technology is military applicable too

>This is one of those "the internet is a fad, it'll never catch on" moments. EV's are here to stay.

Not saying you're one of them (there are other people here who fit the bill much better) but like with anything else the people on the internet peddling grand narratives lacking of nuance are delusional fanboys, malevolent liars or some combination of the two. EVs are absolutely going to win certain market segments and take good chunks out of others. Unless the government gets out of the business of regulating the crap out of electrical infrastructure at great cost to us all there will likely be a whole bunch of heavier use cases where they just can't pencil out barring some yet unforeseeable breakthrough in the basic physics of batteries.

I think the auto industry is wise to think about the upcoming ~30yr transition period where all that shakes itself out and how to invest the right amount into keeping ICE stuff competitive but without investing to the detriment of winning the EV segment, etc, etc, standard big business stuff.

This new EV is to replace motorcycles and scooters that are ubiquitous in mexico. If it succeeds in getting 100k people off of motorcycles it will have the side benefit of reducing healthcare costs treating motorcycle accidents.

I know absolutely nothing about Mexico in terms of geography or driving so I wonder how feasible an EV that you presumably constantly have to charge is going to fare. In the US, a range of 77 miles is a complete non starter. You'd have to charge it every single day. If not multiple times a day in some peoples cases.

It's interesting that info about the car is only half the article. The other half is a commentary on how US politicians are desperately trying to keep foreign EVs out of the country, lest it hurt corporate profits.

> can travel up to 125 kilometers (77 miles) on a single charge

This would be a big hit in European cities. I own VW e-Up! and it's a perfect EU city car. With it's 375KM range, I rarely charge it more than once a month.

"The car is designed for urban settings and has a top speed of 50 kilometers (31 miles) per hour."

I don't think range will be an issue at that speed tbh.

Cool little transport but not really a "car" in the way we think of them.

The limits on range and speed (reported 50kph) would make it a horrible deal for the average American.

150k pesos (~$8.6k) for a brand new wheelchair-accessible city van seems like a killer deal in the Mexican market. That would come on the market for less than a used air-cooled VW beetle (ended production in Mexico in 2003)

I was thinking it would make a good candidate for city taxis and other such urban uses

That was my thought too. They obviously won’t face pushback entering the US from a legal standpoint, but I don’t think consumers will tolerate a sub-200 mile EV well here

Even a used Nissan Leaf with degraded batteries is a viable vehicle in many U.S. cities. I would not call these markets "niche", there are many mid-large metropolitan population centers where they are practical. To use "niche", is either a political denial or ignorance of the population distribution of the United States. They are popular where I live, I drove one as a primary vehicle for 8.5 years, and I have purchased another used Leaf for my teenager. The empty pickup truck is also a "niche" vehicle with this usage -- it clearly isn't an appropriate choice for every driving need and locale.

It's funny how we Americans jump to judging this vehicle by our own needs.

It makes a lot more sense seeing the image where they place it between a car and rickshaw/tuktuk

[delayed]

Would this be enough range for a typical bit of driving in CDMX? Seems like a painful road trip car, but you don't need so much range for a city car.

These are usually called LSVs; the number of these is low but growing because in dense urban areas or planned developments (golf courses, parks, senior communities) they're far more cost effective.

Luckily it was not designed to be used in the US.

counterpoint: I have an EV that I never drive more than 77 miles a day and I paid over $70k for it. Top speed would definitely be a limiting factor, but I do think there's a huge gap in the mobility market between e-bike and a traditional (and expensive!) car.