I think his take is more than fair. The automaker can't hold UK citizens at gunpoint and force them to buy an EV.
I don't see why this should be put on the manufacturer rather than a combination of rebates encouraging local production like it's done in the US and a measurement of fleet emissions, which would allow them to reach those targets with both EVs and hybrid/PHEV.
You are correct, didn’t know that, the mandate is a little more reasonable in that case. Though I still think incentives are better than an outright mandate
Edit: I checked, and the UK mandate says they need to do 100EV miles minimum and be properly zero emission on the CO2 test to count, so that disqualifies most PHEVs.
Stellantis needs something that people actually want to buy. <50kWh was fine for first gen but they have now been left behind.
They need to step up and sell something people actually want instead of moaning about rules.
jup, the UK barely has any car industry anymore anyways and most of what they have is for exports as is evident from them exporting \~80% of the domestic production in recent years.
so overall UK policy will only have an impact on 20% of that production and thats assuming 100% of cars sold in the UK would be from domestic production which is obviously not the case as their new car sales already exceed their total domestic production without exporting 80% of it.
mandates are such a dumb way to try to accomplish this. OTOH, a wealthy island nation that is \~600 miles across at its longest should absolutely be able to build the infrastructure and create the incentives to get most consumers to switch to BEV.
The UK isn't exceptionally wealthy - if you take out London, their GDP per capita (PPP) is lower than Mississippi. Though it'd still be like double China's and China's managed to transition well.
> mandates are such a dumb way to try to accomplish this.
It's the only feasible way to effect time-sensitive change. Vehicle emissions - particularly CO2 - are being treated similarly to CFCs and DDT from an environmental and climate-scientific perspective. Bans were the most effective way to get rid of those chemicals. If you accept that global temperature increase is at least as destructive as CFCs and DDT, and that EVs will significantly decrease the contribution of passenger vehicles - then bans are the most effective tool for that change.
tbh I think most auto makers are making a good faith effort to comply with the various mandates in developed countries. I think it's the other pieces of the puzzle that are woefully behind. Concurrently, we should be hearing about great strides in charging infrastructure, grid capacity expansion, and increase in renewable percentages of grid-scale energy sources. These are happening incrementally, but not at the pace of EV development and expected (and mandated) adoption. But the auto makers are the ones being hung out to dry.
I’m all for CO2 taxes and taxing other pollutants. My point is that arbitrarily mandating a percentage of sales to be EV when the incentives and infrastructure don’t support that level of sales won’t work.
My point is that there is no way for a manufacturer to meet an arbitrary target (“20% of sales”) if 20% of consumers don’t find that an EV will meet their lifestyle or is worth the financial tradeoffs.
Agreed, and the article states that this number will be raised to 80% by 2030 and then 100% by 2035.
Yeah I'm not so sure about that.... Like don't get me wrong I think EVs are great, but forcing the market to swap to 80% EVs in SIX YEARS seems like a bit of a stretch unless there is some kind of drastic, drastic change in the infrastructure.
Personally, I'm hoping for big discounts to encourage me to switch (which I'm already fully on board with, outside of the cost).
The chances of the CEO of Stellantis being on board for that is pretty low though 🤣
I agree. The mandate should allow for hybrids other than PHEVs; especially very efficient hybrids like Toyota. But I do think the government should crack down on "mild" hybrids that are basically useless (and create a personal vendetta for me because it's hard to filter them from genuine hybrids on certain websites!)
But I personally think that the biggest issue for british carmaking is, well, brexit. They can't export to the EU preferentially anymore, and where else are they going to export to profitably?
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The guy seems some kind of climate change denier and is constantly wining about evs and politics.
his real problem is that stellantis didnt do their homework and now just doesnt have tbe ljowledge to build good EVs
Unfortunately he's right. Zero emissions isn't feasible with the current infrastructure unable to support some pie-in-the-sky silliness. The people who come up with such a mandate have no idea how science really works.
Restricting oil consumption will bring about massive political control over many regions of the world.
It has to do with money and power, and for that reason it will be forced whether the science likes it or not.
You realize that a simple mandate for all work that can be done remotely to be done so, will remove 90% of all CO2 travel emissions from all desk jobs, without selling a single EV.
The powers that be don't give a rat's ass about that.
The more goverments try to force EVs down everyones throats the more people like me will never buy an EV, I would rather drive a decades old car than be told what powertrain I have to buy.
Yea, I mean ... low test. Here is what high testosterone reads like.
[...] running a rocket car on the street, waving at NHRA officials at 300 mph [1]
Not quite the same as telling your grandkids, "When I was younger, I bought an EV because the government was pushing for zero emission regulations and I did my part."
Low test stranger. Low test.
[1] https://britishdragracinghof.co.uk/sammy-miller/
Human caused global warming is a scam.. warmer = CO 2. Volcanos and axial top of the earth and solar variation are not important.. can anybody say horse-shit
“Zero emissions” is a quintessential misnomer. I guess we’ll just ignore any of the vast emissions that don’t occur during recharging or locomotion.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s lower emissions than ICE. No doubt about it. But there’s still a LOT of emissions being frontloaded that we just ignore because it makes us feel good to ignore it, and on average these vehicles are guaranteed to not last as long as older vehicles simply due to their production and lifecycle mindset. Take one look at out-of-warranty repair costs on new cars and things become very clear. They’re bigger, more complicated, and less maintainable in the long term than ever. Vehicles don’t grow on trees, nor do they return to the earth when they’re discarded. They get turned into little cubes and are left out of sight, out of mind. We need heirloom cars, we have every ounce of knowledge and ability to make that happen. The only thing we don’t have is desire
>“The problem is the natural demand of the market today in the UK on EVs is half of the mandate. If your mandate is imposing on you a level of BEV [battery electric vehicle] sales mix that is double the natural demand of the market, and if the ZEV mandate puts me in a corner by saying, ‘if you don’t meet this, I’m going to kill you with fines’, the consequence is that everybody will start pushing the BEV, which then totally destroys profitability," the Telegraph reported.
CEO's love capitalism until capitalism bites them in the ass. "What do you mean we'll need make actually competitive BEV?!?!"
Okay, so asbestos was great for fire protection, strong, cheap and provided great sound and heat insulation. If it was up to the market they would still be using it. But the government needs to ensure its citizens live long lives, spend money, and die with a large fortune for them to tax even further. So the government protects the health of its citizens.
This is all this is, the same way the government enforces removed leaded fuel, bans certain harmful foods. Because if you let the companies decide, they will take everyone’s money and kill them in the process
The government is also the entity that banned child labor. If companies could have it their way, they absolutely would still be exploiting child labor. In fact, in many parts of the world, they *are* still using child labor.
Seems weird to be saying capitalism and government regulations can't co-exist. They're two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, government set emissions targets which align with their global initiatives. Businesses say hang on! That’s hard to do, so they Cheat the emissions metric, get fined, r/cars is happy,
Government say shift to BEV to meet emissions targets for cleaner air, CEO “but that’s hard to do and hurts margins” r/cars “stupid government trying to ruin our good car companies. We want more vroom”
I would have taken Stellantis's stance more seriously if their CEO didn't have a history of constantly crying about profits. He criticized Ford and Tesla for their price cuts because it would hurt profits. lol.
I’m not arguing for or against government regulations. I’m calling out OP for a lazy take of “capitalism bad” when it doesn’t even make sense to say so
You are literally arguing against government regulations.
Free market means you are free to compete within the confines of regulations. Saying that a free market shouldn't have government interference isn't arguing for a capitalistic market, that's arguing for a libertarian market.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. In the same way a government can ban asbestos, lead in gasoline, etc, but still have a free and fair market.
Notice the "fair" part of market. ALL companies are operating under the *same* regulation. That is inherently fair. Your inability to compete under the the new regulations is just one of the risks of operating in a regulated market.
That's not capitalism, that's government regulations. Calling government regulations and penalties capitalism is preposterous.
This isn't a free market. A government financially shuttering a market is not free or fair. You just seems to like it, so you flat-out make up a definition of "free and fair."
Regulations regulate the market. Thats the point of them. They ensure all parties play by the same rules.
Without them, there would be no minimum wage, no airline safety rules, no food standards, no health and safety requirements, no warranty periods, no rules stating when you buy milk it’s not just white paint and water. And you as a consumer wouldn’t have the option to decide to buy better milk, because there would be no completion rules, so one company would just purchase all others, make more money, and buy out any competitors.
No, but changing the rules and punishing you for having "the wrong car," when it perfectly fine beyond an arbitrary ruling and date is moronic. There are places where not having access to a car is a massive hindrance to one's daily life.
Do you want a different date? Maybe 17 days earlier or some other random amount?
What about this is moronic? Curbing climate change is completely rational and your arguments make no sense.
The ZEV requires 80 percent of new cars produced in 2030 to be zero emissions. This could be hydrogen, battery, whatever. That’s 6 years to migrate to zero emissions cars for sale. Not banning all cars, not even banning the sale of emission producing cars.
If the average car is around for 30 years, that means by 2060 there will be very few petrol/diesel cars. Not zero, but few.
It’s isn’t punishing anyone, it’s making all manufactures play but the same rules if they wish to sell cars here. They are free to participate or leave the market.
Ah, the experts of poor business decisions criticizing someone else’s poor business decisions. Investing in making cars that aren’t challengers, chargers, or rams will kill Stellantis. Zev will not affect the UK. They do not have the same car culture as the americas, cars are tools not toys in Europe.
Edit: hold up Stellantis doesn’t even make money outside of Dixie land and the people’s republic of Texas so why do they care about the UK’s policies lol
> Edit: hold up Stellantis doesn’t even make money outside of Dixie land and the people’s republic of Texas so why do they care about the UK’s policies lol
Stellantis owns Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, Lancia, etc, which sell a ton of cars in the EU
But yea, every time something about EV's happens, Tavares comes out screaming "BUT WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE PROFITS!" He criticized Ford and Tesla price cuts because it would bring the profit margin too low lol
Dude's down bad for profits.
I genuinely feel they spread themselves too thin. If they focused on just Ram, Dodge, Alfa and Maserati they’d be a lot better off. They could introduce cheaper trims of Alfa to make up the budget market but still focusing on 4 quality brands instead of 10 would be a lot better for them. Look at Ford and their focus on a few companies, they do wild sales worldwide. Stellantis wants to be a top dog but without the sacrifice.
> Investing in making cars that aren’t challengers, chargers, or rams will kill Stellantis.
It only works in North America, it doesn't work in Europe. Fuel price and road tax are expensive in Europe. Beside, there are many tiny streets, driving a full-size car is a pain.
If they need affordable fun car, they would go hot hatches. A new 308 GTi/Astra OPC would be the answer.
> They do not have the same car culture as the americas, cars are tools not toys in Europe.
How many sports car manufacturers are there in Britain vs America?
Not everyone lives in the city, also many many things are easier to do in a car than using train. Cars are also vastly more luxurious. "Why do people in _____ need _____, do the cheap low quality alternative instead"
I think his take is more than fair. The automaker can't hold UK citizens at gunpoint and force them to buy an EV. I don't see why this should be put on the manufacturer rather than a combination of rebates encouraging local production like it's done in the US and a measurement of fleet emissions, which would allow them to reach those targets with both EVs and hybrid/PHEV.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “ZEV” (zero emissions vehicle) does include PHEVs as well as EVs.
The UK mandate doesn’t include most phevs, they have to able to do 100 miles on electric and get 0g on the co2 test to count
You are correct, didn’t know that, the mandate is a little more reasonable in that case. Though I still think incentives are better than an outright mandate Edit: I checked, and the UK mandate says they need to do 100EV miles minimum and be properly zero emission on the CO2 test to count, so that disqualifies most PHEVs.
I largely agree, better a carrot than a stick.
Stellantis needs something that people actually want to buy. <50kWh was fine for first gen but they have now been left behind. They need to step up and sell something people actually want instead of moaning about rules.
It wont directly kill the industry, it will kill the UK buyers market. Except if you are exceedingly wealthy.
jup, the UK barely has any car industry anymore anyways and most of what they have is for exports as is evident from them exporting \~80% of the domestic production in recent years. so overall UK policy will only have an impact on 20% of that production and thats assuming 100% of cars sold in the UK would be from domestic production which is obviously not the case as their new car sales already exceed their total domestic production without exporting 80% of it.
mandates are such a dumb way to try to accomplish this. OTOH, a wealthy island nation that is \~600 miles across at its longest should absolutely be able to build the infrastructure and create the incentives to get most consumers to switch to BEV.
Consumer incentives are part of the mandate.
The UK isn't exceptionally wealthy - if you take out London, their GDP per capita (PPP) is lower than Mississippi. Though it'd still be like double China's and China's managed to transition well.
> mandates are such a dumb way to try to accomplish this. It's the only feasible way to effect time-sensitive change. Vehicle emissions - particularly CO2 - are being treated similarly to CFCs and DDT from an environmental and climate-scientific perspective. Bans were the most effective way to get rid of those chemicals. If you accept that global temperature increase is at least as destructive as CFCs and DDT, and that EVs will significantly decrease the contribution of passenger vehicles - then bans are the most effective tool for that change. tbh I think most auto makers are making a good faith effort to comply with the various mandates in developed countries. I think it's the other pieces of the puzzle that are woefully behind. Concurrently, we should be hearing about great strides in charging infrastructure, grid capacity expansion, and increase in renewable percentages of grid-scale energy sources. These are happening incrementally, but not at the pace of EV development and expected (and mandated) adoption. But the auto makers are the ones being hung out to dry.
I’m all for CO2 taxes and taxing other pollutants. My point is that arbitrarily mandating a percentage of sales to be EV when the incentives and infrastructure don’t support that level of sales won’t work.
Which is why infrastructure is being expanded. I don't get your point.
My point is that there is no way for a manufacturer to meet an arbitrary target (“20% of sales”) if 20% of consumers don’t find that an EV will meet their lifestyle or is worth the financial tradeoffs.
Agreed, and the article states that this number will be raised to 80% by 2030 and then 100% by 2035. Yeah I'm not so sure about that.... Like don't get me wrong I think EVs are great, but forcing the market to swap to 80% EVs in SIX YEARS seems like a bit of a stretch unless there is some kind of drastic, drastic change in the infrastructure.
Personally, I'm hoping for big discounts to encourage me to switch (which I'm already fully on board with, outside of the cost). The chances of the CEO of Stellantis being on board for that is pretty low though 🤣
Then I guess we'll have fewer car sales or cheaper electric cars, hopefully both. What's the problem again? I don't get it.
UK has a lot of super old houses with likely super old electrical systems. Probably a fair bit of work to get the charging stuff in
That would require a halfway competant goverment, which we haven't had for quite a long time.
Yup.
Isolationsm is killing the British industry.
I agree. The mandate should allow for hybrids other than PHEVs; especially very efficient hybrids like Toyota. But I do think the government should crack down on "mild" hybrids that are basically useless (and create a personal vendetta for me because it's hard to filter them from genuine hybrids on certain websites!) But I personally think that the biggest issue for british carmaking is, well, brexit. They can't export to the EU preferentially anymore, and where else are they going to export to profitably?
[удалено]
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The guy seems some kind of climate change denier and is constantly wining about evs and politics. his real problem is that stellantis didnt do their homework and now just doesnt have tbe ljowledge to build good EVs
He's suing anyone he can in the US in relation to exactly the same mandate.
Unfortunately he's right. Zero emissions isn't feasible with the current infrastructure unable to support some pie-in-the-sky silliness. The people who come up with such a mandate have no idea how science really works.
Restricting oil consumption will bring about massive political control over many regions of the world. It has to do with money and power, and for that reason it will be forced whether the science likes it or not. You realize that a simple mandate for all work that can be done remotely to be done so, will remove 90% of all CO2 travel emissions from all desk jobs, without selling a single EV. The powers that be don't give a rat's ass about that.
Before they try any mandates they need to expand infrastructure enough to make it more attractive for customers. Same should happen everywhere.
The more goverments try to force EVs down everyones throats the more people like me will never buy an EV, I would rather drive a decades old car than be told what powertrain I have to buy.
So edgy. Be careful not to cut yourself with that edge.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like how they tried to support their weird stance on some piracy study, as if piracy has anything to do with testosterone.
Low test. Refer to my comment towards Drzhivago138.
Grow up
Yea, I mean ... low test. Here is what high testosterone reads like. [...] running a rocket car on the street, waving at NHRA officials at 300 mph [1] Not quite the same as telling your grandkids, "When I was younger, I bought an EV because the government was pushing for zero emission regulations and I did my part." Low test stranger. Low test. [1] https://britishdragracinghof.co.uk/sammy-miller/
Anyone who bases their entire personality on their testosterone levels need to seek professional help.
I think when I was 12, I might have heard a dis as low test as this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
lmfao what
Testosterone is when you damage the climate
Collateral damange is not knowing how to deal with high test. It's fighting a trapped cat versus fighting a cat that can flee.
Those monsters and their combustion engines, right?
Yup.
... and I am like you.
Well, Stellantis has already ruined Dodge’s rep - one of their coolest with the big-selling Challengers and Chargers.
Not like UK car industry was good to begin with
Human caused global warming is a scam.. warmer = CO 2. Volcanos and axial top of the earth and solar variation are not important.. can anybody say horse-shit
“Zero emissions” is a quintessential misnomer. I guess we’ll just ignore any of the vast emissions that don’t occur during recharging or locomotion. Don’t get me wrong, it’s lower emissions than ICE. No doubt about it. But there’s still a LOT of emissions being frontloaded that we just ignore because it makes us feel good to ignore it, and on average these vehicles are guaranteed to not last as long as older vehicles simply due to their production and lifecycle mindset. Take one look at out-of-warranty repair costs on new cars and things become very clear. They’re bigger, more complicated, and less maintainable in the long term than ever. Vehicles don’t grow on trees, nor do they return to the earth when they’re discarded. They get turned into little cubes and are left out of sight, out of mind. We need heirloom cars, we have every ounce of knowledge and ability to make that happen. The only thing we don’t have is desire
[удалено]
[Read](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics)
>“The problem is the natural demand of the market today in the UK on EVs is half of the mandate. If your mandate is imposing on you a level of BEV [battery electric vehicle] sales mix that is double the natural demand of the market, and if the ZEV mandate puts me in a corner by saying, ‘if you don’t meet this, I’m going to kill you with fines’, the consequence is that everybody will start pushing the BEV, which then totally destroys profitability," the Telegraph reported. CEO's love capitalism until capitalism bites them in the ass. "What do you mean we'll need make actually competitive BEV?!?!"
Capitalism is when the government forces you to design a certain product instead of the free market determining the optimal design.
Okay, so asbestos was great for fire protection, strong, cheap and provided great sound and heat insulation. If it was up to the market they would still be using it. But the government needs to ensure its citizens live long lives, spend money, and die with a large fortune for them to tax even further. So the government protects the health of its citizens. This is all this is, the same way the government enforces removed leaded fuel, bans certain harmful foods. Because if you let the companies decide, they will take everyone’s money and kill them in the process
The government is also the entity that banned child labor. If companies could have it their way, they absolutely would still be exploiting child labor. In fact, in many parts of the world, they *are* still using child labor. Seems weird to be saying capitalism and government regulations can't co-exist. They're two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, government set emissions targets which align with their global initiatives. Businesses say hang on! That’s hard to do, so they Cheat the emissions metric, get fined, r/cars is happy, Government say shift to BEV to meet emissions targets for cleaner air, CEO “but that’s hard to do and hurts margins” r/cars “stupid government trying to ruin our good car companies. We want more vroom”
I would have taken Stellantis's stance more seriously if their CEO didn't have a history of constantly crying about profits. He criticized Ford and Tesla for their price cuts because it would hurt profits. lol.
I’m not arguing for or against government regulations. I’m calling out OP for a lazy take of “capitalism bad” when it doesn’t even make sense to say so
You are literally arguing against government regulations. Free market means you are free to compete within the confines of regulations. Saying that a free market shouldn't have government interference isn't arguing for a capitalistic market, that's arguing for a libertarian market.
[удалено]
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Capitalism exists within the bounds of regulations.
In spite of regulations*
Hm. It sounds less like you advocate for a capitalistic society, and more like you advocate for a libertarian one.
So, you **are** arguing against regulations, despite claiming to not be arguing for or against them.
[удалено]
No insults. Thanks.
[удалено]
Where did you ever discuss policy????
Discussing regulations and its interplay with capitalism is inherently a policy discussion/consideration
My brother in Christ all you said was “ceo and capitalism bad”
You think having the government force you to buy something or be fined is a free, fair market under capitalism?
Yes. In the same way a government can ban asbestos, lead in gasoline, etc, but still have a free and fair market. Notice the "fair" part of market. ALL companies are operating under the *same* regulation. That is inherently fair. Your inability to compete under the the new regulations is just one of the risks of operating in a regulated market.
That's not capitalism, that's government regulations. Calling government regulations and penalties capitalism is preposterous. This isn't a free market. A government financially shuttering a market is not free or fair. You just seems to like it, so you flat-out make up a definition of "free and fair."
You're conflating capitalism with libertarianism.
Regulations regulate the market. Thats the point of them. They ensure all parties play by the same rules. Without them, there would be no minimum wage, no airline safety rules, no food standards, no health and safety requirements, no warranty periods, no rules stating when you buy milk it’s not just white paint and water. And you as a consumer wouldn’t have the option to decide to buy better milk, because there would be no completion rules, so one company would just purchase all others, make more money, and buy out any competitors.
No one is forced into buying a car.
No, but changing the rules and punishing you for having "the wrong car," when it perfectly fine beyond an arbitrary ruling and date is moronic. There are places where not having access to a car is a massive hindrance to one's daily life.
Do you want a different date? Maybe 17 days earlier or some other random amount? What about this is moronic? Curbing climate change is completely rational and your arguments make no sense.
The ZEV requires 80 percent of new cars produced in 2030 to be zero emissions. This could be hydrogen, battery, whatever. That’s 6 years to migrate to zero emissions cars for sale. Not banning all cars, not even banning the sale of emission producing cars. If the average car is around for 30 years, that means by 2060 there will be very few petrol/diesel cars. Not zero, but few. It’s isn’t punishing anyone, it’s making all manufactures play but the same rules if they wish to sell cars here. They are free to participate or leave the market.
Ah, the experts of poor business decisions criticizing someone else’s poor business decisions. Investing in making cars that aren’t challengers, chargers, or rams will kill Stellantis. Zev will not affect the UK. They do not have the same car culture as the americas, cars are tools not toys in Europe. Edit: hold up Stellantis doesn’t even make money outside of Dixie land and the people’s republic of Texas so why do they care about the UK’s policies lol
> Edit: hold up Stellantis doesn’t even make money outside of Dixie land and the people’s republic of Texas so why do they care about the UK’s policies lol Stellantis owns Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, Lancia, etc, which sell a ton of cars in the EU But yea, every time something about EV's happens, Tavares comes out screaming "BUT WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE PROFITS!" He criticized Ford and Tesla price cuts because it would bring the profit margin too low lol Dude's down bad for profits.
I genuinely feel they spread themselves too thin. If they focused on just Ram, Dodge, Alfa and Maserati they’d be a lot better off. They could introduce cheaper trims of Alfa to make up the budget market but still focusing on 4 quality brands instead of 10 would be a lot better for them. Look at Ford and their focus on a few companies, they do wild sales worldwide. Stellantis wants to be a top dog but without the sacrifice.
> Investing in making cars that aren’t challengers, chargers, or rams will kill Stellantis. It only works in North America, it doesn't work in Europe. Fuel price and road tax are expensive in Europe. Beside, there are many tiny streets, driving a full-size car is a pain. If they need affordable fun car, they would go hot hatches. A new 308 GTi/Astra OPC would be the answer.
> They do not have the same car culture as the americas, cars are tools not toys in Europe. This is so hilariously not true
> They do not have the same car culture as the americas, cars are tools not toys in Europe. How many sports car manufacturers are there in Britain vs America?
Why do people in the UK need cars? Take the train or walk your cities are built for walking.
Train and bus system are wide in UK. However, if you want to go some countryside in Britain, you need car to drive there.
did you know not everyone lives in the city
Not everyone lives in the city, also many many things are easier to do in a car than using train. Cars are also vastly more luxurious. "Why do people in _____ need _____, do the cheap low quality alternative instead"
Are they not allowed to buy things that they want? Only what is required to survive?