Mazda Cries Uncle, Too

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Depressing news. Mazda – one of the very few major car brands to not embrace the electric car tar baby – just did.

The same company that – just a year ago – said that “driving matters” has now officially announced it will “electrify” all of its cars by 2030.

You should know why.

It’s not because there’s huge demand for “electrified” cars. There is in fact almost no demand for them. Only about 1 percent of all cars sold last year were “electrified” and those were sold almost entirely in California and Arizona, states where car companies are forced to build them in order to comply with “zero emissions” car quotas. These cars are economic throw-ways. Built because the government requires it, then unloaded (and written off) at a loss, the costs transferred to buyers of cars for which there is real market demand.

So why is Mazda – why is every major car company – tripling down on “electrification?

It is because of the fuel efficiency fatwas I have been ranting about for years and which are on the verge of becoming the tool by which the government will not only force Mazda and every other car company to manufacturer “electrified” cars for which there is no natural market, but will force us to buy them since there will be no more option not to buy them.

As the trade magazine Automotive News styles it – in the approving argot of a the captive car press: “The plan, announced Tuesday, signals a diversification away from the Japanese carmaker’s dependence on traditional internal combustion engines as it reacts to increasingly stringent fuel economy rules.”

Note the language.

The “carmaker’s dependence on traditional internal combustion engines…”

Its “dependence”?

This language is the same species of lunatic reality reversal on display during the Kavanaugh inquisition – in which the man (leaving aside the issue of his politics) was faulted for displaying anger at being publicly accused of gang raping women while a woman who publicly accused the man of a vile act with no evidence to back her up was practically deified as Joan d’ Arc incarnate  on the  basis of her . . . “sincerity.”

How many fingers. Winston?

The implication of AN’s lingo – the same lingo used by the car press, generally – is that internal combustion is bad and it is therefore not good to be dependent on it. The car press never points out that the market wants internal combustion – because it works and because it is within their financial grasp whereas “electrified” cars are not.

But the fuel economy fatwas – they are not “rules” – will force them onto the market, regardless.

Because “electrified” cars are the only means by which these “increasingly stringent” fatwas can be complied with.

If you’ve been following this issue, you already know that the fatwa threatens to almost double to more than 50 MPG on average within ten years from now (hence Mazda’s depressing “commitment” to “electrify” by 2030). Trump held in abeyance the federal fatwa hurled by the federal regulatory ayatollahs during the final months of the lame-duck Obama regime. But then California and other states decided – that is to say, the ruling elites in those states decided –  that they would impose their own fatwas, exceeding even the federal ones.

And most of the car industry signed right up – and not because they care – about gas mileage or emissions or their carbon footprints – but because they have already invested enormously in “electrified” vehicles and don’t want to see that investment pissed away and even more important, don’t want to give Mazda and any other car companies which haven’t yet embraced the electric tar baby a competitive advantage.

Without the 50-plus MPG fatwa, Mazda and other companies would have no problem selling affordable internal combustion-powered cars – while “electrified” cars would languish on dealer lots, unmovable absent massive give-away incentives as is currently the case and always will be the case unless and until “electrified” cars  make more economic sense than cars powered by internal combustion, which maybe will happen someday but isn’t even close to happening today.

Or, probably, tomorrow.

So, they must be made artificially competitive – largely by stomping out of existence the internal combustion engine via regulatory fatwa.

Even full-size trucks will be “electrified” – Ford’s 2019 F-150 will be the first such – which makes as much sense as a thong party in Anchorage. Outside.

In January.

But “electrification” is the only way to even begin to approach a 50-plus MPG mandatory minimum MPG average. The only current cars which achieve this are small hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Ioniq. The most “efficient” non-hybrids can achieve just over 40 MPG – on the highway. Their average is in the mid-low 30s.

The only feasible option to pump those numbers up, given other fatwas (the saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety fatwas, which have made it illegal to build small/lightweight IC-engined cars that could achieve 50-plus MPG) is to  . . . “electrify” pretty much everything.

But this will entail a lot of expense – something the car press habitually avoids discussing as much as it avoids discussing the lack of demand for “electrified” cars. Even part-time “electrified” cars like the hybrid Prius and Ioniq cost several thousand dollars more than otherwise equivalent non-hybrid cars. Fully electric cars cost tens of thousands more.

They will never save you money, even if they do save gas – and since when did it become the government’s rightful business to forcibly decree how much gas we’re allowed to buy – which is ultimately what this comes down to.

The issue would crystalize more clearly in the bluntskulls of the American volk if the government began fatwa’ing how many sodas they were allowed to buy – and how large. Whoops, that’s already being done. And more such to come, unless the principle behind such things is stomped three feet up the colon of the people who presume to dictate such things to the rest of us.

Maybe there is hope. Kavanaugh did manage to get confirmed – much to the carpet-chewing exasperation of those who believe we are obliged to believe… anything they say.

Maybe enough of us have finally had enough.

If so, the time to fight back is right now – because it is almost too late.

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
43 Comments
Grog
Grog
October 7, 2018 5:50 pm

Why did the Jew purchase an electric car?

He didn’t want to go to the gas station.

Horst
Horst
October 7, 2018 6:38 pm

As always, the agenda serves multiple purposes. One, I can imagine, is they use the electric car to develop the battery industry. Those future robots needed to police and replace us need to be powered. Those Tesla tents could be there to develop the capability to assemble high tech in trouble times.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Horst
October 8, 2018 2:22 am

The agenda??? Which one is that?? To overthrow the fossil fuel overlords and reclaim a cleaner atmosphere?? Please enlighten me as to how a car company is going to replace us with robots.

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 6:18 am

Robot overlords need batteries. What dont you understand about that? You cant run a proper man killer robot on everready double A’s , now can we?

Anon
Anon
  Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 8, 2018 6:33 am

Definitely requires 9V.

Aquapura
Aquapura
October 7, 2018 7:02 pm

I should be the perfect candidate for an electric car. My commute is about 5 miles. I drive from a garage to a parking ramp downtown with electric car charging stations. At most I put on 20 miles/day, and that’s if I go run an “errand.” So when I usually say I don’t give a rip about MPG’s, I could also say I’m the perfect person to put into a range limited electric car. And I’m not anti-EV on ideological grounds like Mr. Peters. I actually think hybrids and other fuel saving technologies are a must if we want to continue using fossil fuels into the future. For me it all comes down to dollars and sense. If Ford, Toyota, Mazda, et. al. can create a 100% EV version of their popular models and sell them well equipped for the same price as the internal combustion model I’m willing to consider. Until that day the math just don’t compute for someone who doesn’t care about being seen in an Elon-mobile.

WestcoastDeplorable
WestcoastDeplorable
  Aquapura
October 7, 2018 10:54 pm

Just buy a fucking used Prius. It’s that simple.

starfcker
starfcker
  WestcoastDeplorable
October 8, 2018 3:46 am

there should be plenty of them to choose from. It is the car most traded in on the Tesla Model 3

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Aquapura
October 8, 2018 12:33 am

If it comes down to “dollars and sense” shouldn’t you consider the total cost of ownership and not just purchase price?

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 2:33 am

Anon you forgot the comfort and charging times. For electric cars thats nonsense

KaD
KaD
October 7, 2018 7:18 pm

I just don’t get the electric car push. Don’t most people realize the majority of our electricity is generated by burning COAL? How is this any kind of improvement?

SebastianX1/9
SebastianX1/9
  KaD
October 7, 2018 8:09 pm

Danger American, logic, logic! Danger!

Anonymous
Anonymous
  KaD
October 7, 2018 10:25 pm

Majority means greater than 50% which coal does not provide. In fact natural gas was used to generate more electricity last year than coal. Also the coal industry receives tens of billions each year in US subsidies and the industry as a whole has received subsidies for over a hundred years. So if we cut subsidies to electric cars maybe we should cut subsidies to fossil fuels companies also. Or subsidize electric vehicles at a comparable rate until economies of scale reduce prices down below $30k and let the consumer decide. The Model 3 is getting us pretty close already.

The kid
The kid
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 2:15 am

Good point. I was about to rebutle him myself.

It’s about progress. Change doesn’t happen by continuing to rely on methods we have used for over 100 years at this point.

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 6:21 am

They arent making any 35,000 teslas. Bait and switch. Read more on this website! Fuck, havent you read any of eric peters stuff?

Karrl
Karrl
  KaD
October 7, 2018 11:39 pm

In Texas there is so much wind electricity that on some nights they offer it for free.
In Calf. the daytime solar is almost free.
Overnight my electricity comes from the nearby nuke. plant.
It really depends on where you live.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  KaD
October 8, 2018 2:20 am

A majority obviously doesn’t make a difference. Look at our last election

CHRISTOPHER R PITTS
CHRISTOPHER R PITTS
  KaD
October 8, 2018 9:15 am

Even 100% coal charging cars is cleaner and lower emissions than 100% cars burning gasoline. That number improves every day as more renewables replace coal power plants.

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 7, 2018 8:45 pm

How much how far can an electric f150 tow a 5000lb trailer? I need 200 miles each way. I can recharge for 20 minutes during unload. In winter, headlights heater and wipers on. And it needs to cost 40,000 or less. Otherwise i’ll drive a 400hp ram that gets 22 mpg.

Karrl
Karrl
  Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 7, 2018 11:41 pm

You should be rooting for the OPOC engine being developed by Achates . Go to their website.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 8, 2018 2:17 am

How much far?

[spoiler title=”Tesla is making a truck bro “]

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 6:22 am

A 100,000 dollar pickup.

DUANE WEAVER
DUANE WEAVER
October 7, 2018 9:33 pm

Mazda never said any such thing. It was recently reported that Mazda thinks that only 5% of cars would be electric by 2030.

Grog
Grog
  DUANE WEAVER
October 7, 2018 10:52 pm
WestcoastDeplorable
WestcoastDeplorable
October 7, 2018 10:50 pm

I’ll keep my 2012 Prius Plug-in. first 10 or so are free, and she gets 60-70 mpg on trips. Biggest expense: Oil changes every 10,000 miles

Mojo JoJo
Mojo JoJo
October 7, 2018 11:06 pm

Obey. The regressive left demands it.

The kid
The kid
  Mojo JoJo
October 8, 2018 2:19 am

I suppose you’d enjoy helping your neighbours bail their house out while the seas rise in ten or twenty years?

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
  The kid
October 8, 2018 6:25 am

It would take 10,000 years for the ice sheets of greenland and antartica to melt enough to raise ocean levels one inch. And i live in the mountains. So, i will help bail houses, if you help me shovel snow each winter until sea levels rise.

Anonymous
Anonymous
October 8, 2018 12:14 am

The statement “They will never save you money” is untrue. You can simply calculate the break-even point based on difference in prices, increased mileage and fuel costs. Some other articles have done these comparisons and show break-even points between 4.5 years and 11+ for various hybrids. True some fully electric cars might never save you money but that probably isn’t your main reason if you’re buying a Model S. Now a Model 3 would eventually “save you money” over a comparable car although it might take a few more years. Maybe you can revise that statement in your article?

Also you stated “since when did it become the government’s rightful business to forcibly decree how much gas we’re allowed to buy – which is ultimately what this comes down to”. If you’re referring to regulating mpg that might be 1975 with the establishment of the CAFE standards.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 2:18 am

Be cautious stating that here, that’s an awful lot of logic. If you keep speaking like that you may be labeled as a sedetious citizen.

Llpoh
Llpoh
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 5:05 am

Anon – where do replacement parts factor in, and new battery banks? When you have to pay $1000 or $3000 or whatever for a new door handle like with Teslas, you may never break even.

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
  Anonymous
October 8, 2018 6:32 am

The batteries puke in 5 years. 11+ years is one old beat up car worn the fuck out. Still wont tow, and still cant go 400 miles in under ten hours, so useless in my world. I havent had a vehicle last more than 9 years. Salt ate the frame on my toyota p/u in 9 years flat. Seats last 6 years before they are beat to uncomfortable.
So if you like gutless turdwagons, i aint stoppin you, but leave my gas powered truck alone. I would drive a diesel if it hadnt become so expensive to own and maintain.

CHRISTOPHER R PITTS
CHRISTOPHER R PITTS
  Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 8, 2018 9:23 am

You realize electric motors are instant torque, and the batteries are getting to where the incoming Tesla pickup is supposed to have a 500 mile range, and charge in an hour.

The Tesla semi they are testing right now can hold 60mph up a 7% grade. The Tesla Model X can beat a Lotus Elise in a 1/4 mile drag race while towing a Lotus Elise behind it. The Tesla Pickup will have enough power to drive where you need to go, plug a welding machine into it and run it off the batteries, then go home to charge.

Electric is the future. deal with it.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  CHRISTOPHER R PITTS
October 8, 2018 1:29 pm

.

The kid
The kid
October 8, 2018 2:14 am

What.did .I. just. Read.
Wait. Please don’t answer that.

Anonymous
Anonymous
October 8, 2018 6:01 am

You’re clueless. Can’t believe I wasted my time reading that inaccurate and incoherent drivel.

Anon
Anon
October 8, 2018 6:35 am

So, how many government engineers are busy designing the electric jet and the electric tank?

Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
Iwasntbornwithenufmiddlefingers
October 8, 2018 6:38 am

Help, I have fallen for the agw hoax and i cant get up.

Oh please government, with all your honesty and compassion, tell me what to do!

Never mind the actual pollution caused mining rare earth elements, and help me think only of co2!

Help me forget co2 feeds plants and is a building block of life itself!

Its for the children!

If even one child is saved( to be used by the catholic church or pakistani grooming gang) it will be worth the destruction to our economy and common sense!

Craig Johnson
Craig Johnson
October 8, 2018 10:29 am

“…until “electrified” cars make more economic sense than cars powered by internal combustion, which maybe will happen someday…”

This is disingenuous, Eric. You’re part of the problem if you even believe for a second that electric vehicles will ever be a viable technology.

Anonymous
Anonymous
October 8, 2018 11:06 am

I think I’ve found my new favorite news-blog.

Fuckyou Jalopnik.

ChrisNJ
ChrisNJ
October 8, 2018 11:09 am

This whole electric sham is only about changing the game. The bigger car manufacturers must have the gov. to keep changing the game, so the lesser manufacturers can’t keep up. When the 3rd world gets close catching up they change the game again. Progress my ass.

There was nothing wrong with a ’97 chevy silverado (just an example), for 2-3mpg less than I get today with my current model. It could be made today for $20K, easy. Get it? 2-3 mpg? Really, that $20-25K extra I paid for a ’14 would buy a lot of gas.
Same could be said for a ’95 Toyota Corolla, etc… etc….

Anonymous
Anonymous
  ChrisNJ
October 8, 2018 1:37 pm

Dont forget the VW TDI engines.