Nathan Williams found and shot a car we won’t be seeing here: the all-new Honda E. It’s a compact EV, styled with more than a tip of the hat to the classic Honda Civic. Very clean, and very cute.
Why isn’t it coming here?
It’s designed for the urban centers of Europe and Japan, whose inhabitants are not so range-greedy as most Americans. The rather modest sized 33.5 KWH battery delivers some 137 miles of range on the European test cycle, which is more generous than the EPA’s. That probably amounts to some 110-120 miles here, or about the same as the Mini Cooper SE, which Jim Klein just reviewed here recently. That amount of range would be perfectly suitable for a lot of folks, since the great majority of commutes are significantly less than that. But perception is reality, and Americans perceive that as just too little range. 230-250 seems to be the new minimum hereabouts.
In case you were wondering about the lack of outside rear view mirrors:
They’re cameras, each with its own screen on the far ends of thew twin-screen…um…rolling home video center. Get used to it…
No, those cameras aren’t yet legal in the US, but quite likely soon.
So here’s another car to add to your car-spotting list whenever you do get back to Europe.
Annoyed. I’m scheduled to go for a plug-in electric at the beginning of 2021 for my primary errand runner, and this car would be perfect for my needs. As usual, the American market doesn’t get the really good stuff. Because, of course, every single one of us has a 250 miles round trip daily commute, is incapable of plugging the car in every time we get home, and can’t stand waiting more than five minutes for a 0-100% charge.
By the way: To define personal needs, anything more than an i-MiEV would work (I could make a 2011 Leaf work as long as the battery isn’t too worn down), and I’m looking at either buying a used Leaf or Bolt, preferably 2017 at the oldest, or leasing something new based on what’s available and supported in the Richmond area at the time.
I was surprised that there were already several review videos of this car on YouTube from magazines (and individuals?) all around the world.
The only video I watched was quite critical of this car, but not of its range. The reviewers thought it was a bit cramped inside and with all the video screens (6 in all ) that there was too much info to be adequately processed by most drivers. Though they did admit it was a fun sort of car to drive.
BTW, the side view cameras and the rear view camera each feed screens in the car, though (apparently?) the rear view camera can be switched off and the mirror functions normally.
I also seem to remember (?) the reviewers were surprised that a few features found on most cars were omitted here….but I can’t remember what they were. It seems like the car came across as a rolling prototype that needed a bit more sorting out.
Any particular reason why you’re not looking regular hybrids?
The household is already well served by ICE-powered vehicles (the ’08 Kia Sedona for long trips, hauling, and long trips with hauling; the wife’s ’20 Nissan Kicks SR; and three motorcycles which are used heavily in commuting when I’m beyond bicycle range).
Five miles and under without having to carry a bulky load automatically means bicycle use, and I use them heavily enough that I actually lost weight during the spring/summer hunker-down mania of the pandemic.
And I have a past with electric cars for errand running, having driven a Sebring-Vanguard CitiCar (owned by a cycling sidekick of mine) regularly about fifty years ago. From that I grew up a huge believer in battery electric vehicles for local transportation, and have always been in the fortunate position of being able to own multiple, narrowly-considered, transportation sources for individual uses.
Plus, there’s the desire to see how well I can make this work. It’s been in the planning stages for awhile now, was originally planned for last fall but the garage fire put everything on hold for awhile while we rebuilt. At least the new garage is wired for level 2 charging both inside and out.
Given the above, adding an ICE to the vehicle would feel like cheating. Yeah, I am considering a Volt, although the physical size of the car is pretty much maxing out what I care to drive. (I’m a small car person. The only reason I’ve never owned a Smart is the transmission and my wife absolutely loathes them.) Yes, I’ve love a Cadillac ELR, but resale on those is way too high for my purchase budget. Realistically, my best shot at a hybrid would be a BMW i3 with range extended, or maybe a Volt.
If you are considering a Volt you should also put the C-Max Energi on your list. It is a car that actually is fun to drive. Yeah the EV range is less than the Volt but depending on your use patterns it may work out for you.
I think those are rated at something like 20 miles, pure electric. That’s not enough. I tend (especially over the past year, given the health conditions) to go out only every couple of days, stacking errands together, so I’d need an honest 35-40 mile electric range for the car to be workable.
Any “oops I forgot” trips are invariably taken care of by one of three malls within a five mile radius of the house. That’s covered by bicycle.
Final strike against the C-Max: My favorite bar (keeping a very tight ship under current COVID-19 regulations, and I hit it during happy hour when there’s only 3-4 patrons in the place) is 12 miles from the house. I don’t think a C-Max has the range to do that trip plug-in. It was a big consideration until I started reading about the electric range. That’s also killed the plug-in Prius, which I believe has an absolutely laughable electric-only range.
You shouldn’t get hung up on that 20 mile EV range. It’s the vehicle’s overall mileage that matters, I believe. The Ford Plug-in hybrid system in my C-Max gave me mid-70s mpg for 40,000 miles. Then I replaced the energy saver times with Michelin Primacy, and it’s dropped to the mid-60s. That’s all dependent on your driving habits, though. Without taking a 150-mile drive once a week, as is my habit, I could be racking up 80 or 90 mpg. Even on those long drives the battery is doing hard work; I’m surprised at the high percentage of time it spends in EV long after that 20 miles is past. That’s along way to say that after the plug-in power is gone, it’s a darn good hybrid.
To your point, that 24 mile round trip might be possible in a C-Max, if you didn’t use heat or AC. But if you needed to use the engine for five miles, that would use about one-tenth of a gallon. I’m OK with that, because I believe that using a small amount of gas is less environmentally harmful than hogging many times as much lithium and rare earths in an EV-sized battery. There’s something to think about.
Hmmm – woodgrain plastic dash trim is making a comeback? I’m kind of sorry to see that.
I’m guessing that’s supposed to be a throwback to the dash of the original Civic. My first car was a 1977 CVCC hatchback, and the photos of this car’s dashboard, with that trim, immediately made me think of my Civic. Although the original Civic didn’t have plastic wood grain trim on the center console.
+1
You’re not the only one.
I remember reading some articles that showed early renderings of this car a couple of years ago. The execution is fairly close to what I saw, though the dash looks a lot busier and more chaotic, and those wheels are pretty ugly. The prototype looked more like a nod to the early generation Civics, whereas in the flesh here, it looks like more of a cross between a Fit and a Golf. I like the simplicity of the design, though.
I love it. Even though it seems like there are a zillion screens on that dash, maybe it makes more sense to have more screens with fewer functions per screen? I’m still trying to acclimate myself to the tech in our recently purchased Kia, and the part that I find frustrating is figuring out how to work my way through the menus to get to the feature or function I’m looking for. Might be easier if each individual screen only did a couple things. Kind of like gauges that only gave a readout of one or two things in the old days.
If the screens aren’t going to be multi-function, then why not use far safer and more intuitive physical controls? We wound up forfeiting a century of accumulated ergonomic knowledge because German luxury manufacturers started selling gadget-laden rolling gin palaces for the ‘more!’ crowd instead of performance cars. They ran out of room for controls for all the toys new Chi-com money demanded. If I’m going to have to put up with one infotainment touch screen in a new car, oh well. The idea that anyone with poor enough judgement to want a glass cockpit car will actually have one is terrifying though, as first responders who watch two and a half ton Teslas crash into their vehicles can tell you.
The rear view side cameras on this car might be an advancement, but the wall to wall screens make it look like an electronics store. Ever seen a slack-jawed idiot in an electronics store? She probably got there in a car.
Those bright, eye-catching dash screens are something I just can’t abide. It’s such an obvious hazard in a moving car, on dark roads in bad weather. The last thing you want is a busy visual environment. That’s my minority report on that!
Also another chance to praise the C-Max. The 2016-17 models have a dash button that tuns off the center dash screen. It’s my favorite button of all. I always wanted a SAAB with their exclusive “Dark Panel” switch.
My Tacoma has a button, …. uh, touch screen button, a few levels down the option menu to turn the center screen off. I should use it more often. My 20-something daughter, who drives a stick shift, has a kick start motorcycle and a film camera, and listens to vinyl, turns it off when she (reluctantly) drives my Tacoma. She would not like this car.
Honda’s excuse is that Americans only want crossovers *(gnashes teeth)* but I don’t buy it from them, surely they realize that EVs (at least non-Tesla ones) are still very much in the early-adopter stage and bought by people whose automotive tastes are by definition outside the mainstream?
“Honda’s excuse is that Americans only want crossovers *(gnashes teeth)* but I don’t buy it from them”
Don’t underestimate their marketers. They know what they’re talking about, and my household is the latest example of it. I LOATHE crossovers almost as badly as I hate broughams (no, nothing will ever top my brougham hatred). Yet when my Southern girl redneck wife decided it really wasn’t her preferred image to be seen in a pseudo-European sport sedan (’15 Dodge Dart GT), and the replacement had to be a pickup truck or SUV. And, given her budget, a crossover still comes under the term “SUV”.
She’s now the overjoyed owner of a new Nissan Kicks SR . . . . . . even though pretty much everyone here knows that a Kicks is nothing more than a slightly jacked-up Nissan Versa Note (we had one as a rental for two weeks and were very surprised in how much we liked it) with sort of a big, burly, off-roading, SUV look to the styling.
Hey, mama’s happy. Which means the dog, both cats and I are happy. I would have rather bought a new Versa Note, but they don’t exist anymore. You want one, you buy a Kicks – at about $2-3000.00 more expensive than last year’s Note.
As to legacy manufacturers EV’s being in the early adopter stage, they’re going to stay that way until said legacy manufacturers get serious about their electric cars. Define serious? Stretching yourself in production to the point where you HAVE to sell them because of the number manufactured, and not selling them could mean the company’s demise.
Which, said manufacturers have pointedly avoided doing. There’s always delay after delay of all those neat EV’s that are being promised, which the company would really like to sell you a pickup truck right now. And another one five years from now, since they once again pushed back the introduction of that long promised EV.
And they’re not going to get serious about them until they force their franchised dealers to sell them with the same fervor as they sell pickups and SUV’s. The last Chevrolet dealer I dropped by to talking about a new Bolt immediately tried to steer me to a Trax they had sitting in the lot.
Well, it’s almost the same car, same style, same size. Who’s worrying about little things like the propulsion system?
I don’t think so.
It IS a marketing problem as you state but the marketing needs to occur at the manufacturer to dealer level. That salesperson that tried to steer you from a Bolt to a Trax would be falling all over themselves to move anyone looking at a Trax the other way to a Bolt instead if his commission (or the dealer’s take) was incentivized so that he makes twice as much (or more, pick a number) on a Bolt.
Then again, there are only easy solutions if the manufacturers actually WANT to sell EVs and as you rightly state nobody is really willing to be the second guinea pig until Tesla gets bigger and bigger and eventually someone else’s dominos all fall over and they go under due to it. Then everyone might start to legitimately scramble, too late.
So you are suggesting that they cut the price of Bolts to dealers hoping that the potential added profit will incentivize them to sell more? I’m sorry but the “we loose money on everyone we sell but we just make it up in volume” didn’t work for GM in the past and it won’t work now.
No that isn’t what I suggested, you seem to be imagining words in there.
What’s a salesperson at Chevy make for moving a low-margin Trax? $100? Offer an additional spiff from GM directly to the sales person of $500 per Bolt moved and advertise that to the employees. Raise the sticker price by the same amount. Whether the sticker is $38000 or $38500 is not going to change a buyer’s behavior if interested in the product. At this point there isn’t any direct competition at the same price point and form factor, you are either interested (or could become interested) in the Bolt itself or you aren’t. Currently salespeople don’t seem to have much incentive to sell it, why else would someone try to move Syke from a $30k+product to one costing half of that especially when he was clear about what he was looking for.
The whole point is to raise awareness and move units to reach a critical mass. If there need to be losses to start, then so be it. It’s not like ANY car is a profit producer on day one of sales. And some will never be. But if you can get people used to coming to your store for your product, perhaps the next time around you can actually make money on it.
They already discount them to move as many as they do, so the car doesn’t support the existing list price.
Just like pretty much every pickup truck ever sold, selling everything under sticker seems to be the big 3’s (And many others’) M.O. in most cases….Of course the Bolt doesn’t make money, but it’s hard to create demand for the Bolt and then other potential future products like it from the same manufacturer (GM) when the sales staff is actively pushing the buyer toward different products.
Syke’s point I believe was that the manufacturers don’t WANT to sell them, they just want to be able to say that they have them but they aren’t selling. Can’t sell what you don’t stock, know about, or refuse to show to the customer. If a manufacturer really wanted to actually sell one, then the retail seller (middleman, dealer, salesperson) needs to be incentivized to do so.
At this point as has been rightly pointed out the only EVs that sell in any volume are Teslas likely in part because the manufacturer IS the dealer and has an actual interest in selling them by a) showing and demonstrating them, b) supporting them and c) building them in volume and d) drumming up interest in them and e) building them in configurations and designs that actually appeal to people. We’re eight years in now and Nissan of all brands is the second most successful purveyor of EVs in this country! Judging by the generally low opinion lots of people here hold of Nissan, one would think that if they could do it, then perhaps some of the others could as well. Sadly, no, but of course Nissan has also seemingly lost much interest in staying the course. Their Euro partner Renault though seems to have taken up the mantle with the fairly popular Zoe in that part of the world which gives hope.
But I’m done with this discussion, it’s gotten overly tedious and I’m tired of going back and forth about it. None of this is news to you, time to move on to something else.
“As to legacy manufacturers EV’s being in the early adopter stage, they’re going to stay that way until said legacy manufacturers get serious about their electric cars. Define serious? Stretching yourself in production to the point where you HAVE to sell them because of the number manufactured, and not selling them could mean the company’s demise.”
Umm, what you are suggesting would lead to a company’s demise. If you over produce to the point you HAVE to sell them even though demand doesn’t exist, then to move they you’ll be selling them at a loss.
That said many legacy makers getting serious about EVs, Renault/Nissan/Mitsubishi certainly are serious to the point they sell more EVs in Europe than any other MFG.
VW is serious too, coming in at second place in Europe 1st 1/2 2020, and aiming for #1 by year end with the new ID models adding volume.
On this side of the pond Ford is also serious with the Mach-E on the verge of production and the EV-150 production line build out underway.
I’m hardly expecting GM, Ford, etc. to drive themselves into bankruptcy to advance the cause of electric vehicles. This is where Tesla has one hell of an advantage: Either they make electric cars work, or they go out of business. Period. That’s called motivation.
Where I’m getting pissed with most of the legacy manufacturers is that they’re playing all the publicity they can of their electric future, while doing as damn little as they can get away with on actually stocking and trying to sell the cars.
One of the reasons we bought the Kicks from the Nissan dealer we did, rather than the two competing dealerships (all three offers were very close to each other – the one we bought it from wasn’t the cheapest by a small amount) is that these guys actually treat the Leaf as a model that should be sold, rather than something they have to carry. And they make a point of always having a couple of used Leafs in inventory, their four charge points are always kept open, and they’ve got a couple of mechanics in the shop who are experienced in the cars. That’s my idea of how a legacy manufacturer’s dealer should be treating the cars.
When I finally buy one, seeing I’m going into a brave new world for me, I’d like to know I have a dealer backing me that actually gives a damn about the product.
Still looking for their Chevrolet equivalent. I think I may have one out in the western suburbs of Richmond.
What’s being overlooked in this discussion is that everyone except Tesla loses money on every EV sold in the US. Period.
These are all compliance-mobiles, to meet the zero emission regs from the 11 states that follow CA. Otherwise, they’d have to buy credits from Tesla.
That’s precisely why they’re all holding back. Would you increase production in order to lose more? No need to sell more than necessary to meet the ZEV numbers.
Will GM and Ford and the others eventually be able to build and sell EVs profitably? That’s the multi-billion dollar question. Nobody knows. But nobody’s going to ramp up massive production until these two issues/questions are answered:
1. Can it be built profitably?
2. Is the actual demand there to sell in large numbers?
Currently Tesla has a bit over 80% of the US EV market. All the other manufacturers (domestic, Japanese, Korean, European) are dividing the crumbs. Which is ok for now, because they lose money on everyone sold.
The strategies of GM, Ford and FCA are all the same: sell as many high margin IC trucks for as long as possible, in order to finance the development of EVs, but do not commit to genuine mass production until there’s clear evidence that the demand is there. The longer the wait, the better for them. Unless of course Tesla keeps mopping up 80 % of the EV market forever. If that’s the case, then they’re kind of screwed, in the long run.
Paul, very good points.
I’m finding it difficult to believe, however, that Tesla is always going to keep an 80% market share. I sure hope not, because, theoretically you’re talking the eventual failing of just about every other car manufacturer. (Yes, I tend to believe that EV’s will take over completely, although not in my lifetime.)
What I’m questioning is: Isn’t a major reason Tesla’s keeping that 80% market share because it’s painfully obvious to the consumer that they’re the only ones who really want to be in that market? At times, it feels like shopping an electric car with one of the traditional manufacturers isn’t all that unlike considering buying a Studebaker in the 1960’s. Do you really want to buy a product from someone who’s giving no indication that they’re going to be around (or in this case, supporting an EV) ten years later?
Somehow, the traditional manufacturers have to develop, and convey, an enthusiasm for a product that isn’t making money. While still selling their traditional product. After all, Tesla did it without the fallback of ICE-powered trucks. How many years were we listening to all the comments at the other site that Tesla, “has never shown a profit and it’s only a matter of days before they go belly up.”
I always assumed Tesla holds that share because of the Supercharger (?) network. I’m not positive anymore but isn’t that Tesla exclusive?
It is important to note that Tesla doesn’t make money selling EVs, they make money by selling EVs AND the credits that they generate.
And as Scoutdude accurately points out, Tesla’s business model vanishes into thin air when every other manufacturer is losing money on making EVs instead of being forced to subsidize theirs.
I’m guessing Honda (so far) has looked at the Bolt’s limited success even though the range is excellent and that the Mini will sell as much on style as much as anything else while anything else as range-limited doesn’t sell particularly well relative to the size of the country. This would likely not be much less expensive and probably not sell in huge numbers, thus making it more difficult to deal with from a dealer perspective. Better to establish it in Europe and Asia and then, if everything works out, think about bringing it over IF the Mini achieves success. After all, they just cancelled the Fit due to Americans’ general allergy to most things small.
Honda probably realizes that the cuteness factor only goes so far here. I do love it though and the interior especially. Early reviews state that the “wood” looks excellent, i.e. real, even though it isn’t, I find that it breaks up the overly techiness of the cabin to something more approachable by anyone.
The mirrors are interesting, I look forward to trying something like that, my initial concern is that the viewfield is limited and would not extend/expand if you move your head as with a regular mirror, i.e. it’s as if you had your regular mirrors adjusted and were unable to move your head/eyes at all relative to it. I was reading more about this after disliking the GM video mirror rear-view in a Chevy I reviewed earlier this year. Perhaps the field of vision is large-enough, i.e. sort of fish eye to make it a lesser concern in a side view.
I’m guessing the mirrors would be something to get used to. My gut reaction to them was positive, as I live in a one-car-two-driver household and I hate adjusting them every time I use the car (which is generally only a few times a week). In fact I only ever adjust the interior rear-view mirror anymore, as I’ve just gotten used to the way the outside mirrors are adjusted, so I no longer aim for optimal adjustment with those.
I have to assume that these “side mirrors” are aimed for the best approximation of “optimal view”. My personal preference has always been to adjust both mirrors so that I can see the rear flanks of the vehicle at the inner-most sides of the mirrors when glancing at them. I realize this is probably not how most people adjust them, but I feel like it helps with perspective. I assume the cameras beaming to these psuedo-mirrors are mounted at the rear corners of the car. That would probably take me some time to get used to, but for others it probably wouldn’t matter at all.
The cameras in this case are visible on those little sideways fins visible just below where a regular mirror would be.
Mirror cameras are already being used in Europe, on Mercedes-Benz trucks and as an option on certain Audis, including the E-tron. You sense the potential as being pretty significant -these are not a novelty.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/12/20191214-mirrorcam.html
My own 2016 Civic has an outside mirror cam that displays on the nav screen whenever I put on the right turn signal. I can also deploy it without the turn signal if I want to just look to see if changing lanes would work before tuning on my signal. This is done with a button at the end of the turn signal stalk.
It even has lines showing car and truck lengths so that you can judge whether or not a lane change is safe.
It took no time at all to get used to this feature, and I wish my other cars had it. Personally, by comparison, those little yellow sensor lights are useless. The actual view is much better.
I do remember German manufacturers being slated for their ability to make real wood and leather look fake.
I work with corporate furniture and MDF/MFC boards are getting better and better grain surfaces. Manufactured primarily from recycled and/or waste materials the top end ranges from Egger are pretty much imperceptible from real wood.
A direct MINI-electric competitor it is! Did a bit of searching, and I was pleasantly surprised to see how many small and compact EV’s are being offered these days. Plenty of choice; brands, size- and price-wise.
Here’s our current list of EV-offerings, from “cheap” to top-segment. Range is in km, naturally.
https://www.anwb.nl/auto/elektrisch-rijden/elektrische-autos
Speaking of unusual electric cars, I saw this Think City earlier this month in Maryland. I’d never seen one before (it’s circa 2010), and didn’t realize that they had been sold in the US at all, yet the US-market cars were even produced in Indiana. I figure the majority were sold on the West Coast.
Not a bad-looking design for this type of car… I was surprised to find out it was ten years old.
Always wanted to see one of those.
Come to California. The Think isn’t exactly common, but in the Bay Area at least, not a complete rarity.
The Honda E seems to be aimed at those who want style over any practical ability. Its true range is probably closer to 100 miles and no doubt less in Winter. Car Magazine is finding the electric Mini, with a similar range, very limited in use. Unless you have access to a charger, it’s going to a very expensive toy and you’ll definitely need a second IC car to go any distance. Walk around most European inner cities and you’ll quickly realise there isn’t the infrastructure to support thousands of electric cars with a pathetic range. These are a waste of resources.
The Honda is receiving rave reviews, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it nabs Car Of The Year. But it’s an automotive example of the Emperor’s New Clothes. There is nothing to see.
Most people in this country do have a second or even third car though. Many of those have a garage or a driveway to recharge overnight. Numerous people drive well under 100 and even well under 50 miles a day.
Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. But to each their own.
Case in point: What is useless to you, is exactly what I need. Home charger is no problem, the garage is already wired for Level 2 charging, so even if I use it every single morning, I’m still going to have a fully charged car. And yeah, I may look at leasing a Mini EV, although being a BMW product I’m already kind of assuming it’s going to be out of my price range.
What’s pathetic range? From that comment, I’m assuming you’re in a situation where you have a 100+ mile commute, five days a week, minimum. And you’re living in a situation where plugging in your car every night is impossible. Or at least very difficult.
I learned how much you can practically commute with a bicycle back in 1969 and it’s stuck with me ever since, to the point that there are periods in my life where a bicycle was my main transportation. I’ve learned that, for ICE powered transportation, there’s very little that can beat a 125-150cc scooter, as long as you don’t have to go above 50mph (they put motorcycles to shame). And I’ve especially learned that a ICE-powered automobile isn’t really an absolute necessity unless you’re talking bad weather or carrying multiple passengers or a fairly sizable load, there’s a lot of better alternatives out there to automatically falling back on a car.
The Mini starts at $29900 and ends at 36900 fully loaded. All potential tax rebates are still in play, depends on your financial situation and your state and/or locality, in my case I would be able to receive $11,500 back of either of those prices at the end of the year or as soon thereafter as I file taxes.
Hmmn. May have to add another potential to my list.
Kudos to you Syke for your commuting choices over the decades! You’ve walked the walk, so to speak, not just talked about it.
It struck me as ironic with those photos of crowded freeways from yesteryear showing mostly 6-passenger cars carrying only a driver. No wonder traffic got so bad (and still does of course). Talk about wasted resources. I realize though that many feel unsafe (myself included) on 2 wheels or even in a tiny car.
I did use public transit or car pools during the first part of my working career, when I lived in the Louisville, KY and Washington, DC metro areas. But once I moved to Charlottesville, VA, I reverted to the single-occupant passenger car for commuting until my recent retirement.
Work was close enough for bicycling, but the roads aren’t safe enough around here (either 4-lane 55-60 mph divided highways or narrow, twisting 2-lane back roads without shoulders). Still, to his credit, one of our senior managers regularly commuted by bike using these same back roads.
I love it! It’s like a glass cockpit inside.
Reminds me of flying the 747-400 or the Triple-7 in Microsoft’s Flight Simulator 2004.
I like the styling, as my first car was a 1977 CVCC hatcback. I find it a little odd that Honda would style it to look like the first-generation Civic when the car is going to be sold in Europe but not the U.S. The original Civic had much more of an impact in the U.S. than it did in Europe.
Honda is probably not selling it here because for most people in the U.S. electric cars make no financial sense and are impractical. I don’t plan to ever own an electric vehicle.
I hope that the E and the new Fit we also aren’t getting are indications that the arbitrarily origamied style of the typical Japanese car today is coming to an end. The Civic hatch is one of the worst offenders.
But when a Bolt, Leaf, or Kia Niro have over a hundred miles more range than the Honda I don’t see a reason to buy one anyway. That extra hundred miles (122 for the Bolt, almost double the range) would really expand the potential use of any of those over the Honda E.
Even with higher California gas prices it is hard to justify an EV to replace my Fit with the low annual mileage it gets. If I did, this does not look like the one.
100 miles range comes just short of what I need for my normal weekend trips. San Diego, where family lives, is about 120, as is Big Bear. That means taking the gas guzzling 4X4 pickup when there is no snow.
Until the Tesla competitors offer direct sales without dealers, comprehensive over-the-air diagnostics and repairs, and a nationwide (in many nations) “fueling” network, it doesn’t really matter how good those competitors’ cars are. But other than the dash, I like this Honda. Though to me, the front end evokes Jeep Renegade, not early Civic.