We’ve all read so-called “range anxiety” stories — and most EV owners know they amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the lived experience of electric cars. And yet, there seems to be a narrative in mainstream media that range anxiety is the key issue when it comes to EV adoption, one that they’re rather keen on pushing whenever the opportunity arises.
The New York Timespublished an article this week in which one of its climate reporters — one who claims to have had experience driving and charging Teslas in the past — describes an incident that ended with his depleted rental Volvo C40 Recharge being towed away by Hertz in rural Minnesota.
The blame, according to that Times reporter, lies at the feet of Hertz for not informing him of the few charging stations where he was headed (how would they know?), the C40 Recharge’s “slow” recharge speed (it supports 149kW DC), and the general state of US charging infrastructure (read: the one charger he found was too slow).
The reporter also briefly blames himself for choosing an EV for a trip into rural farming country without checking on the availability of charging stations, but this seems rather beside the overall story he’s attempting to drive home here: EVs and EV infrastructure aren’t “ready” for regular Americans. From the article:
But for now, if electric vehicles can’t get me from Minneapolis to the South Dakota border and back, they’re almost certainly not ready for the great American road trip.
The facts of the story are as follows.
The reporter rents a C40 Recharge from Hertz in Minneapolis.
He says the vehicle has 200 miles of indicated range (read: it probably wasn’t fully charged — the C40 offers 226 miles of EPA range), but knows that he has planned a 308-mile round-trip journey with deadlines.
He finds a single (6kW) charger while en route and stops to use it, but it’s Very Slow (“2%” added in 30 minutes).
He decides to go on anyway, hoping there will be more charging stations ahead (he does not appear to research this at all). There aren’t any.
He arrives at a farm near the South Dakota border with 20% charge remaining (45 miles) and charges the car on an AC wall outlet for 15 hours, adding 20 miles of range (so, 65 miles, presumably — this will become important later).
He decided that because there are no chargers within 50 miles of the farm, he has to call Hertz and have them tow the car, which they do, and he gets a ride with a friend back to Minneapolis.
Hertz charges him a $700 tow fee, and he works with Hertz PR to get this refunded because he believes the fee is unjust.
A few things come to mind.
First, I can’t even begin to understand how any of this is Hertz’s problem. This person used a rental vehicle in a way that was likely to leave it stranded and is blaming the rental company for this? Is this any different than renting a Ford Mustang and then blaming Hertz when it gets stuck on a washed-out dirt road in the backcountry? Did he even tell Hertz what his route was? Did he truly expect them to say something like, “Hey, this is probably going to mean planning your charging carefully”? His justification here is borderline ridiculous.
But Hertz deserves some blame too. The company rented me a car that was slow to charge, and did nothing to warn me about the dearth of charging stations outside of Minneapolis. Surprising me with a huge fee poured salt on the wound.
Second, his assertion that this was a “slow charging” car. Now, this is just flatly wrong — the C40 Recharge supports 149kW DC fast charging. While you’ll be lucky to find something like that out in the Minnesota sticks (barring Tesla Superchargers), a 50kW charger plugged in for an hour would likely have avoided this whole debacle.
Third, the whole chain of events here is a comedy of errors. I bothered to actually do some Google Maps sleuthing, and everything about this outcome was utterly avoidable. The reporter claims that a 6kW Blink charger was the “only” option on his way back to Minneapolis, but that was only after he’d passed a 50kW ChargePoint about 60 miles into his journey, presumably with around 140 miles of indicated range remaining on the C40. Had he stopped there and charged near to full, he’d have been able to hit the same station on the way back for a brief second charge before returning the car the next day.
This 50kW ChargePoint location was en route from the airport, where he likely rented his car
All this is to say: The person who ended up in this situation was a victim of their own ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. In choosing to use a vehicle with an understood set of capabilities and limitations, he chose not to inform himself and instead ended up in a debacle whose summary analysis should have started and ended at “well, that was stupid of me.”
As icing on the cake, his claim about the car being unable to reach another charging station after adding 20 miles of range at the farmhouse overnight seems dubious. A ZEF 50kW station in Marshall, Minnesota, is at most 65 miles from wherever this person was headed, and likely a bit closer (I picked a town that would have actually made for a round trip longer than the 308 miles the reporter claimed).
If the article math is accurate, this 50kW ZEF station was reachable (and this origin point is likely farther than the one in reality)
The article says that the car showed no chargers “within 50 miles” of the farm, so presumably that means anything beyond that radius just… didn’t exist?
I get it: When traveling for work, considering the peculiarities and planning necessary for your means of conveyance is probably not the first thing on your mind. But when you’re taking a 300-plus-mile road trip in rural Minnesota in an electric car, you should probably be thinking about this stuff.
And as for Hertz refunding that $700 tow fee, while I’m not going to say I love anything about Hertz as a company, it sure seems like they did it to avoid the ire of The New York Times more than any belief this person had a valid grievance.
EVs aren’t complicated. This person’s trip was entirely feasible — with five minutes of planning. They chose not to put in that five minutes and ended up stranded. I don’t think electric cars or their infrastructure are to blame.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Most Wall Street analysts covering Tesla’s stock (TSLA) badly misread the automaker’s delivery volumes this quarter. Some of them have started releasing notes to clients following Tesla’s production and delivery results.
Here’s what they have to say:
According to Tesla-compiled analyst consensus, the automaker was expected to report “377,592 deliveries” in the first quarter.
Truist Securities maintained its hold rating on Tesla’s stock, but it greatly lowered its price target from $373 to $280 a share. They insist that while their earnings expectations have crashed because they overestimated deliveries, investors should focus on Tesla’s self-driving effort, which they see as “much more important for the long-term value of the stock.”
Goldman Sachs lowered its price target from $320 to $275 a share. The firm expected 375,000 deliveries from Tesla in Q1 and therefore had to adjust its earnings expectations with almost 40,000 fewer deliveries.
Wedbush‘s Dan Ives, one of Tesla’s biggest cheerleaders, called the delivery results “disastrous”, but he reiterated his $550 price target on Tesla’s stock.
UBS has reiterated its $225 price target which it had lowered last month after adjusting its delivery expectations in Q1 to 367,000 – one of the more accurate predictions on Wall Street.
CFRA‘s analyst Garrett Nelson reduced his price target from $385 to $360 a share.
Electrek’s Take
I find it funny that most of them are maintaining or barely changing their expectations after they were so wrong about Tesla in Q1.
If you were so wrong in Q1, you should expect to be incorrect also for the rest of the year, and readjust accordingly.
But Cantor is invested in Tesla, and the firm is owned by Elon’s friend, who happens to now be the secretary of commerce. Truist still believes Elon’s self-driving lies, Goldman Sachs overestimated Tesla’s deliveries by the equivalent of $2 billion in revenues, and Dan Ives is Dan Ives.
Covering Tesla over the last 15 years has confirmed to me that most Wall Street analysts have no idea what they are doing – or at least not when it comes to companies like Tesla.
Do you know any who have been consistently good lately? I’d love suggestions in the comment section below.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The global market rout on Thursday, sparked by President Donald Trump’s announcement of widespread tariffs, had an outsized effect on fintech companies and credit card issuers that are closely tied to consumer spending and credit.
Affirm, which offers buy now, pay later purchasing options, plunged 19%, while stock trading app Robinhood slid 10% and payments company PayPal fell 8%. American Express and Capital One each tumbled 10%, and Discover was down more than 8%.
President Trump on Wednesday laid out the U.S. “reciprocal tariff” rates that more than 180 countries and territories, including European Union members, will face under his sweeping new trade policy. Trump said his plan will set a 10% baseline tariff across the board, but that number is much higher for some countries.
The announcement sent stocks reeling, wiping out nearly $2 trillion in value from the S&P 500, and pushing the tech-heavy Nasdaq down 6%, its worst day since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
The sell-off was especially notable for companies most exposed to consumer spending and global supply chains, including payment providers and lenders. Fintech companies that rely on transaction volume or installment-based lending could see both revenue and credit performance deteriorate.
“When you go down the spectrum, that’s when you have more cyclical risk, more exposure to tariffs,” said Sanjay Sakhrani, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, citing PayPal and Affirm as businesses at risk. He said bigger companies in the space “are more defensive” and better positioned.
Dan Dolev, an analyst at Mizuho, said bank processors such as Fiserv are less exposed to tariff volatility.
“It’s considered a safe haven,” he said.
Affirm executives have previously said rising prices might increase demand for their products. Chief Financial Officer Rob O’Hare said higher prices could push more consumers toward buy now, pay later services.
“If tariffs result in higher prices for consumers, we’re there to help,” O’Hare said at a Stocktwits fireside chat last month. Affirm CEO Max Levchin has offered similar comments.
However, James Friedman, an analyst at SIG, told CNBC that delinquencies become a concern. He compared Affirm to private-label store cards, and pointed to historical trends in credit performance during downturns, noting that “private label delinquency rates run roughly double” in a recession when compared to traditional credit cards.
“You have to look at who’s overexposed to discretionary,” he said.
Affirm did not provide a comment but pointed to recent remarks from its executives.
Wait, Mazda sells a real EV? It’s only in China for now, but that will change very soon. The first Mazda 6e built for overseas markets rolled off the assembly line Thursday. Mazda’s new EV will arrive in Europe, Southeast Asia, and other overseas markets later this year. This could be the start of something with a new SUV due out next.
Mazda’s new EV rolls off assembly for overseas markets
The Mazda EZ-6 has been on sale in China since October with prices starting as low as 139,800 yuan, or slightly under $20,000.
Earlier this year, Mazda introduced the 6e, the global version of its electric car sold in China. The stylish electric sedan is made by Changan Mazda, Mazda’s joint venture in China.
After the first Mazda 6e model rolled off the production line at the company’s Nanjing Plant, Mazda said it’s ready to “conquer the new era of electrification with China Smart Manufacturing.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The new global “6e” model will be built at Changan Mazda’s plant and exported to overseas markets including Europe, Thailand, and other parts of Southeast Asia.
Mazda calls it “both a Chinese car and a global car,” with Changan’s advanced EV tech and Mazda’s signature design.
Mazda 6e electric sedan during European debut (Source: Changan Mazda)
Built on Changan’s hybrid platform, the EZ-6 is offered in China with both electric (EV) and extended-range (EREV) powertrains. The EV version has a CLTC driving range of up to 600 km (372 miles) and can fast charge (30% to 80%) in about 15 minutes.
Mazda’s new EV will be available with two battery options in Europe: 68.8 kWh or 80 kWh. The larger (80 kWh) battery gets up to 552 km (343 miles) WLTP range, while the 68.8 kWh version is rated with up to 479 km (300 miles) range on the WLTP rating scale.
At 4,921 mm long, 1,890 mm wide, and 1,491 mm tall, the Mazda 6e is about the size of a Tesla Model 3 (4,720 mm long, 1,922 mm wide, and 1,441 mm tall).
Mazda said the successful rollout of the 6e kicks off “the official launch of Changan Mazda’s new energy vehicle export center” for global markets.
The company will launch a new SUV next year and plans to introduce a third and fourth new energy vehicle (NEV).
Although prices will be announced closer to launch, Mazda’s global EV will not arrive with the same $20,000 price tag in Europe as it will face tariffs as an export from China. Mazda is expected to launch the 6e later this year in Europe and Southeast Asia. Check back soon for more info.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.