Lexus plans to launch a next-generation EV with super-low drag, high range, and a gigacast vehicle structure, in the most significant electric vehicle announcement to come out of this year’s Japan Mobility Show.
While the LF-ZC may still be a concept, it’s one that the luxury mark owned by Toyota is committing to, with production set to begin in 2026. That’s two-plus years from now, and while it’s hard to say how the vehicle landscape will change during that period, it’s not that far off, all things considered. Given what Lexus is saying about the LF-ZC, this sounds like a legitimately next-gen vehicle, using prismatic batteries, steer-by-wire, and a gigacast modular vehicle structure (initially pioneered by Tesla, but now being pursued by many automakers).
Lexus says the LF-ZC will have a drag coefficient under 0.2, and based on the concept’s Prius-esque teardrop design, this does look like an aero-first EV. The front doors on the concept version of the car are even shaped to channel air from the wheels.
Lexus isn’t sharing any details on range, saying only that the LF-ZC will have twice the range of “conventional” battery electric vehicles. It’s impossible to know what Lexus considers conventional, but I’d suspect nothing in the Tesla lineup qualifies. Anything in excess of 400 miles would certainly be impressive, and if Lexus was working with a “conventional” figure of less than 200 miles, I think we’d all be pretty disappointed! But this is just speculation, and that’s all Lexus has really left us to do here: speculate. (Edit: Some outlets are saying Lexus considers 500 kilometers to be the “conventional” figure, putting the LF-ZC at 1000 kilometers or around 620 miles of range. If true, that could be a game-changer. It also sounds pretty optimistic.)
One thing that may not be apparent from the images is that this is a small sedan, not a mid-size crossover. The LF-ZC has a wheelbase just 15 mm longer than a Tesla Model 3’s, at 2,890 mm. It’s also 50 mm shorter (vertically) than the Model 3, coming in at 1,390 mm — I’d suspect rear headroom is not going to be especially great in this car. With Lexus’s aggressive aerodynamic goals, that does make sense, though. Overall vehicle length is around the same, with the LF-ZC slightly longer than the Tesla.
Using steer-by-wire, it’s possible Toyota will be able to lay out the cabin of the LF-ZC to be roomier than its diminutive wheelbase would suggest. That’s because steer-by-wire requires no steering column — or any other components connecting the steering wheel to the vehicle wheels. The steering wheel (or yoke) becomes, effectively, a digital joystick. Everything happens via electronic position sensors on the yoke, with control modules relaying those inputs to the electric power steering system, which then adjusts the wheel angle accordingly.
Steer-by-wire as a technology isn’t new, per se, but it’s rarely been seen outside concept cars. The momentum behind a steer-by-wire transition, though, is the greatest it’s ever been. (Tesla recently patented such a system.) Getting the feel and responsiveness of a steer-by-wire system right has long proven challenging, though. Such designs lack the direct and instantaneous connection to the rolling components of traditional hydraulic and electric-assist power systems. Initial driving impressions of Lexus’s prototypes for such systems have been mixed.
So why keep trying to make steer-by-wire happen, Gretchen? Cost and packaging: By eliminating big, stress-bearing connective components from the steering system, manufacturers can save money and dramatically reduce the overall footprint of that system. In short: The steering wheel (or yoke) becomes just a steering wheel — a computerized control interface, nothing more. That, in turn, frees up a lot of volume in the dash area, potentially opening up more of the cabin as usable passenger space. In vehicular design, centimeters count just as much as dollars and cents, and a steer-by-wire system theoretically optimizes for both. For vehicle manufacturers, it’s a win-win. But for consumers, if steer-by-wire doesn’t feel reassuringly safe and communicative during driving, it could end up being a huge turn-off. (Some people position steer by wire as a liability risk, but I think this is a red herring — all modern cars use throttle by wire, and many now use brake by wire, too. There’s nothing special about steering from a liability perspective for a carmaker.)
As for the rest of the LF-ZC, we just don’t have much to work with yet. Aesthetically, the car looks like a 4th Gen Prius someone ran through a Tron filter. The design isn’t brutal, exactly, but form closely follows function here, likely reflecting the price positioning of this car as an entry-level premium sedan.
The interior of the LF-ZC is so dark and vague that I’d take almost none of what you see inside as reflective of final production intent — though if steer-by-wire does happen, that yoke could end up being pretty close to reality. (Steer-by-wire systems don’t require hand-over-hand steering since they can infinitely adjust the steering ratio by vehicle speed. This makes a yoke more practical.) The interior concept looks pretty spartan overall, aside from that massive passenger infotainment display. The driver gets two smartphone-sized screens mounted at an angle, one to the left of the steering yoke, and one to the right, along with an instrumentation display above it at the top of the dash. The number of hard buttons and switches in the LF-ZC appears to be “as near to zero as humanly possible” — call it cost-cutting or Tesla copycatting; either shoe fits.
Electrek’s Take
This is as close as Toyota (well, Lexus) has ever come to offering a response to Tesla. The LF-ZC is very plainly positioned in the same small luxury sedan space the Model 3 is, and it’s a segment that a manufacturer as large as Toyota can’t ignore if it’s going to be a serious player in EVs. But without details on range, power, or pricing, it’s very difficult to say how competitive Lexus’s offering will be. If the alleged estimate of over 600 miles of range is even close to reality, though, that feels worth the wait on other details.
Assuming the LF-ZC does go on sale in 2026, that will likely put it smack in the middle of the lifecycle of the new Model 3 Highland refresh, but still potentially ahead of whatever Tesla’s “next-gen” mass market vehicle ends up being.
Given this car is badged as a Lexus, that also opens the door for a cheaper Toyota variant down the road. The Prius-like styling, in my view, is no accident here. Drop some of the more aspirational aero, add some plastic trim, and take away a few of those displays, and it’s not hard to imagine a more basic Toyota take on this concept. Launching on Lexus, a luxury brand, would also be a way to offset some of the high initial cost of a new electric model as it scales up.
Steer-by-wire is a technology Toyota and Lexus seem highly motivated to adopt, and the space and cost-saving implications clearly illustrate their reasoning. While I’ve never driven a steer-by-wire car, everything I’ve read and heard to date has been underwhelming. Let’s hope Lexus irons out the kinks before the LF-CZ comes to market. My most optimistic take on steer-by-wire is that it at least makes a yoke a defensible design decision, since the steering controls no longer need to rotate to the extreme multi-turn angles of a traditional wheel (Lexus’s most recent steer-by-wire concept has 200 degrees of total rotation — meaning a little over 90 degrees left and right).
Toyota has given a lot of lip service when it comes to BEVs and offered some wild concepts, but the LF-ZC seems like a pretty concrete promise to actually build something.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Rio Tinto Group logo atop Central Park tower, which houses the company’s offices, in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The mining sector appears poised for a frantic year of dealmaking, following market speculation over a potential tie-up between industry giants Rio Tinto and Glencore.
It comes after Bloomberg News reported Thursday that British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto and Switzerland-based Glencore were in early-stage merger talks, although it was not clear whether the discussions were still live.
Separately, Reuters reported Friday that Glencore approached Rio Tinto late last year about the possibility of combining their businesses, citing a source familiar with the matter. The talks, which were said to be brief, were thought to be no longer active, the news agency reported.
Rio Tinto and Glencore both declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.
A prospective merger between Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest miner, and Glencore, one of world’s largest coal companies, would rank as the mining industry’s largest-ever deal.
Combined, the two firms would have a market value of approximately $150 billion, leapfrogging longstanding industry leader BHP, which is worth about $127 billion.
Analysts were broadly skeptical about the merits of a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger, pointing to limited synergies, Rio Tinto’s complex dual structure and strategic divergences over coal and corporate culture as factors that pose a challenge for concluding a deal.
“I think everyone’s a bit surprised,” Maxime Kogge, equity analyst at Oddo BHF, told CNBC via telephone.
“Honestly, they have limited overlapping assets. It’s only copper where there is really some synergies and opportunity to add assets to make a bigger group,” Kogge said.
Global mining giants have been mulling the benefits of mega-mergers to shore up their position in the energy transition, particularly with demand for metals such as copper expected to skyrocket over the coming years.
A highly conductive metal, copper is projected to face shortages due to its use in powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems, among other applications.
Oddo BHF’s Kogge said it is currently “really tricky” for large mining firms to bring new projects online, citing Rio Tinto’s long-delayed and controversial Resolution copper mine in the U.S. as one example.
“It’s a very promising copper project, it could be one of the largest in the world, but it is fraught with issues and somehow acquiring another company is a way to really accelerate the expansion into copper,” Kogge said.
“For me, a deal is not so attractive,” he added. “It goes against what all these groups have previously tried to do.”
Last year, BHP made a $49 billion bid for smaller rival Anglo American, a proposal which ultimately failed due to issues with the deal’s structure.
Some analysts, including those at JPMorgan, expect another unsolicited offer for Anglo American to materialize in 2025.
M&A parlor games
Analysts led by Dominic O’Kane at JPMorgan said the bank’s “high conviction view” that 2025 would be defined by mergers and acquisitions (M&A), particularly among U.K.-listed miners and global copper companies, was coming to fruition just two weeks into the year.
The Wall Street bank said its own analysis of the mining sector found that the current economic and risk management environment meant M&A was likely preferred to the building of organic projects.
Analysts at JPMorgan predicted the latest speculation would soon thrust Anglo American back into the spotlight, “specifically the merits and probability of another combination proposal from BHP.”
Prior to pursuing Anglo American, BHP completed an acquisition of OZ Minerals in 2023, bolstering its copper and nickel portfolio.
The company logo adorns the side of the BHP gobal headquarters in Melbourne on February 21, 2023. – The Australian multinational, a leading producer of metallurgical coal, iron ore, nickel, copper and potash, said net profit slumped 32 percent year-on-year to 6.46 billion US dollars in the six months to December 31. (Photo by William WEST / AFP) (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)
William West | Afp | Getty Images
Analysts led by Ben Davis at RBC Capital Markets said it remains unclear whether talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore could result in a simple merger or require the breakup of certain parts of each company instead.
Regardless, they said the M&A parlor games that arose following merger talks between BHP and Anglo American will undoubtedly “start up again in earnest.”
“Despite Glencore once approaching Rio Tinto’s key shareholder Chinalco in July 2014 for a potential merger, it still comes as a surprise,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a research note published Thursday.
BHP’s move to acquire Anglo American may have catalyzed talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore, the analysts said, with the former potentially looking to gain more copper exposure and the latter seeking an exit strategy for its large shareholders.
“We would not expect a straight merger to happen as we believe Rio shareholders would see it as favouring Glencore, but [it’s] possible there is a deal structure out there that could keep both sets of shareholders and management happy,” they added.
Copper, coal and culture
Analysts led by Wen Li at CreditSights said speculation over a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger raises questions about strategic alignment and corporate culture.
“Strategically, Rio Tinto might be interested in Glencore’s copper assets, aligning with its focus on sustainable, future-facing metals. Additionally, Glencore’s marketing business could offer synergies and expand Rio Tinto’s reach,” analysts at CreditSights said in a research note published Friday.
“However, Rio Tinto’s lack of interest in coal assets, due to recent divestments, suggests any merger would need careful structuring to avoid unwanted asset overlaps,” they added.
A mining truck carries a full load of coal at Glencore Plc operated Tweefontein coal mine on October 16, 2024 in Tweefontein, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.
From a cultural perspective, analysts at CreditSights said Rio Tinto was known for its conservative approach and focus on stability, whereas Glencore had garnered a reputation for “constantly pushing the envelope in its operations.”
“This cultural divide might pose challenges in integration and decision-making if a merger were to proceed,” analysts at CreditSights said.
“If this materializes, it could have broader implications for mega deals in the metals [and] mining space, potentially putting BHP/Anglo American back in play,” they added.
GreenPower Motor Company says it’s received three orders for 11 of its BEAST electric Type D school buses for western state school districts in Arizona, California, and Oregon.
GreenPower hasn’t made the sort of headline-grabbing promises or big-money commitments that companies like Nikola and Lion Electric have, but while those companies are floundering GPM seems to be plugging away, taking orders where it can and actually delivering buses to schools. Late last year, the company scored 11 more orders for its flagship BEAST electric school bus.
As far as these latest orders go, the breakdown is:
seven to Los Banos Unified School District in Los Banos, California
two for the Hood River County School District in Hood River, Oregon
two for the Casa Grande Elementary School District in Casa Grande, Arizona
Those two BEAST electric school buses for Arizona will join another 90-passenger BEAST that was delivered to Phoenix Elementary School District #1, which operates 15 schools in the center of Phoenix, late last year.
“As school districts continue to make the change from NOx emitting diesel school buses to a cleaner, healthier means of transporting students, school district transportation departments are pursuing the gold standard of the industry – the GreenPower all-electric, purpose-built (BEAST) school buses,” said Paul Start, GreenPower’s Vice President of Sales, School Bus Group. “(The) GreenPower school bus order pipeline and production schedule are both at record levels with sales projections for (2025) set to eclipse the 2024 calendar year.”
GreenPower moved into an 80,000-square-foot production facility in South Charleston, West Virigina in August 2022, and delivered its first buses to that state the following year.
Electrek’s Take
BEAST and NanoBEAST; via GreenPower Motor Company.
Since the first horseless carriage companies started operating 100 years ago (give or take), at least 1,900 different companies have been formed in the US, producing over 3,000 brands of American automobiles. By the mid 1980s, that had distilled down to “the big 3.”
All of which is to say: don’t let the recent round of bankruptcies fool you – startups in the car and truck industry is business as usual, but some of these companies will stick around. If you’re wondering which ones, look to the ones that are making units, not promises.
While some recent high-profile bankruptcies have cast doubt on the EV startup space recently, medium-duty electric truck maker Harbinger got a shot of credibility this week with a massive $100 million Series B funding round co-led by Capricorn’s Technology Impact Fund.
It’s been a rough couple of weeks for fledgling EV brands like Lion Electric and Canoo, but box van builder Harbinger is bucking the trend, fueling its latest funding round with an order book of 4,690 vehicles that’s valued at nearly $500 million. Some of the company’s more notable customers including Bimbo Bakeries (which owns brands like Sara Lee, Thomas’, and Entenmann’s) and THOR Industries (Airstream, Jayco, Thor), which is also one of the investors in the Series B.
The company plans to use the funds to ramp up to higher-volume production capacity and deliver on existing orders, as well as build-out of the company’s sales, customer support, and service operations.
“Harbinger is entering a rapid growth phase where we are focused on scaling production of our customer-ready platform,” said John Harris, co-founder and CEO. “These funds catalyze significant revenue generation. We’ve developed a vehicle for a segment that is ripe for electrification, and there is a strong product/market fit that will help fuel our upward trajectory through 2025 and beyond.”
The company has raised $200 million since its inception in 2021.