VW has announced its pricing, range and color options for the upcoming ID.Buzz, with 3 interior and 11 exterior colors available when it hits the road later this year.
But we never knew for sure how much it would cost. The European version starts in the ~$65-75k range (depending on country, and EU prices generally include taxes), and the US version is even bigger, so we worried the price might be even higher.
Today we’re learning that the ID.Buzz will start at $59,995 base for the “Pro S” tier, a bit of a relief compared to what we might have expected. The Pro S only comes in rear-wheel drive, and comes with a second-row bench seat with room for seven passengers.
A Pro S Plus tier starts at $63,495 (or $67,995 for AWD) and the launch-only “1st Edition” will start at $65,495 for RWD or $69,995 for AWD.
Rear-wheel drive models have 234 miles of EPA range, and all-wheel drive models are slightly less efficient at 231 EPA miles. AWD models come in six-seat configurations, swapping the 2nd row bench seat for two captain’s chairs instead. You can get captain’s chairs on the Pro S Plus RWD for an additional $695.
The ID.Buzz will have three available interiors: Dune, Copper and Moonlight. Dune won’t be available on the base Pro S, only the upgraded trims.
The 11 exterior colors are split up into 3 monochrome single-tone colors and 8 two-tone colors. The two-tone colors are only available on upgraded trims, whereas the base Pro S trim will only have access to the three single-tone exteriors.
Two-tone colors cost an additional $995 on the Pro S Plus model, or are included on the 1st Edition models, though that model is limited to blue, orange, green, silver, and yellow exteriors.
Pro S Plus can also add a panoramic “smart glass” roof for $1,495, which is electrochromic and can turn opaque to help keep the sun off of you. 1st Edition includes this glass roof standard.
A list of other options included with the various trims, and samples of the exterior colors, can be seen below:
One last point on price: none of the ID.Buzz trims will qualify for the $7,500 US federal EV tax credit due to being assembled outside the US. However, VW will likely offer lease incentives, as other companies have done, since that allows them to bypass many of the restrictions of the credit. We don’t have the details of those yet, but stay tuned when the Buzz does finally hit the road, which should happen in October/November.
Electrek’s Take
When I was young, my family had a VW Vanagon Westfalia camper, so the VW bus has special significance to me. My family went on a lot of adventures in that bus, and for all its quirks, it was an awesome vehicle.
So I’m quite excited about the ID.Buzz, and have long thought this would make the perfect platform for electrification.
When I saw the original concept, I loved the cool retro style it had, calling back to that fun old bus I grew up with.
That said, I’m slightly let down by the real thing. It’s a little less quirky, a little more van-like, than the original concept – which was already a little less quirky than the old VW microbuses were to begin with. There are a lot of reasons for this, including new pedestrian and occupant safety standards that make the old VW bus’s minuscule overhangs untenable in this day and age, but I still do miss it.
So, the final version of the ID.Buzz is a lot more van-like, and a lot less quirky (though the two-tone paint option does offer a big visual improvement, in my opinion). But “normal” might not be such a bad thing.
There aren’t a lot of electric vans out there, with the $52k Pacifica Hybrid being the only other one with a plug at the moment. However, it’s just a 32-mile plug-in hybrid, whereas the Buzz is the first electric minivan you can buy in the US.
So despite missing out on some of the quirkiness, the Buzz has a market all to itself at the moment. There are some other electric vans, like the Ford E-Transit and Mercedes eSprinter, but those are more commercial-focused (VW does have a cargo version of the Buzz in the EU, but it’s not coming to the US).
And the Buzz is selling well in the EU, with VW planning to increase production dramatically to meet US demand. So it sees a large untapped market and expects to grab hold on it quickly. So despite my personal misgivings, maybe something a little more normal will slot well into a market that wants any electric van.
And while the price isn’t exactly low, it’s lower than we expected, and there are certainly plenty of higher-end minivans that price out around that level. Coupled with potential state or local incentives and a possible lease discount once VW gets leases up and running, the Buzz could end up at a quite competitive price compared to the competition.
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Hyundai’s electric fastback is due for some major upgrades that could finally make it the Tesla Model 3 challenger it was designed to be. The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is better than ever, featuring a stylish new look both inside and out, an NACS port for charging at Tesla Superchargers, and even more driving range than expected.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is a long-range, stylish EV
It’s been just about three years since Hyundai unveiled the IONIQ 6 for the first time at the 2022 Busan International Motor Show.
Hyundai’s “electrified streamliner” arrived as what was expected to be a genuine rival to the Tesla Model 3, boasting over 350 miles of driving range, fast charging in under 20 minutes, and an affordable price tag.
Despite this, the electric sedan has failed to live up to its hype. In the US, IONIQ 6 sales fell 6% last year, with only 12,264 units sold. According to Cox Automotive, Tesla sold 189,903 Model 3s in the US last year, a decrease from 2023, partly due to the launch of the refreshed model.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
With the upgraded IONIQ due out later this year, Hyundai’s EV might finally match the Model 3 as another long-range, fast-charging, affordable electric sedan.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 (Source: Hyundai Motor)
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 has just become Korea’s longest-range electric sedan. It was officially certified by the Ministry of Environment with a range of up to 568 km (353 miles), surpassing the Kia EV4 at 549 km (341 miles).
On the WLTP scale, that could translate to nearly 700 km (430 miles) range. The current IONIQ 6 is rated with a WLTP range of up to 614 km (382 miles).
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 N-Line (Source: Hyundai Motor)
For those in the US, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 already provides an EPA-estimated range of up to 342 miles. The new model is expected to achieve a range of over 350 miles.
The new IONIQ 6 features an upgraded 84 kWh battery, similar to the 2025 IONIQ 5, providing increased driving range. Hyundai’s new IONIQ 5 is now rated with an EPA-estimated driving range of 318 miles, up from 303 miles in the 2024 model.
Like the IONIQ 5 refresh, the new IONIQ 6 is expected to arrive with a built-in NACS port, allowing access to Tesla Superchargers.
Hyundai teases the new IONIQ 6 N (Source: Hyundai)
Hyundai unveiled the new IONIQ 6 design at the Seoul Mobility Show in April, saying it “enhanced every line and detail to make the IONIQ 6 simpler and more progressive.” And last week, Hyundai teased a sporty “N” line mode coming soon. We got a sneak peek of it in public a few days later after it was spotted driving in Korea. You can tell, it’s already shaping up to be a significant upgrade.
As for prices and final specs, we’ll have to wait until closer to launch later this year. Check back soon for more info. We’ll keep you updated with the latest.
Will Hyundai’s electric sedan finally compete with the Model 3? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Fire and smoke rise into the sky after an Israeli attack on the Shahran oil depot on June 15, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.
Getty Images | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Global investors may be underpricing the impact of a conflict between Israel and Iran, market watchers warned on Monday, as stocks rallied despite escalating warfare in the Middle East.
Despite the continued fighting — with hundreds reported dead — global stock markets sustained a positive momentum on Monday, seemingly shrugging off broader concerns about the conflict.
Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, warned on Monday that there was a risk markets were underpricing “the risk of a major conflagration in the Middle East,” particularly when it comes to the energy market.
European shares opened broadly higher on Monday, with Asia-Pacific stocks and U.S. stock futures also trading in the green. Even Middle Eastern indexes saw gains on Monday, with the Tel Aviv 35 index last seen trading 1% higher after falling 1.5% last week.
“This is partly because there are so many moving parts and geopolitical considerations, and partly because the potential outcomes are so unthinkable,” Mould said. “In a worst case, oil and share prices would be the least of our worries.”
In a Monday morning note, David Roche, a strategist at Quantum Strategy, warned that the conflict between Israel and Iran “will last longer than the Israeli lightning-strikes that the market is used to.”
Torbjorn Soltvedtp, principal Middle East analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, agreed, saying an escalation remained of “huge concern.”
“What we have now is very different, and what we’re seeing is effectively a war and an open-ended one,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”
“And of course, that is something that has huge implications, not just for the region, but also for energy markets and how they interpret what is happening. You know, minute by minute and day by day.”
Energy markets have moved the most on news of the attacks, as the Israel-Iran conflict stoked supply concerns.
“A lull is the most likely outcome before later escalation when Iran rejects US Trump’s overtures,” Roche said. “The market is likely to mistake the lull for lasting peace. I would use the lull to buy into energy assets as a safe haven.”
‘Very modest’ market reaction
Some market watchers are taking a somewhat less pessimistic view, however.
In a note on Monday, Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid noted that while both Iran and Israel had traded retaliatory blows, they had so far avoided “the most extreme escalatory steps.”
“As geopolitical shocks are becoming more frequent it seems it’s now at least a yearly occurrence that we refer to our equity strategists’ work on the impact of such shocks and how long it takes for the market to recover from them,” he said.
Loading chart…
“The typical pattern is for the S&P 500 to pull back about -6% in 3 weeks after the shock but then rally all the way back in another 3,” Reid said. “[Our strategists] believe this incident will likely be milder than this unless we get notable escalation as they highlight that equity positioning is already underweight … and a -6% selloff would need it to fall all the way to the bottom of its usual range.”
Philippe Gijsels, chief strategy officer at BNP Paribas Fortis, told CNBC on Monday that he feels the market is correct in not pricing a huge escalation, such as the U.S. being drawn into the fray, or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz, nestled between Iran and Oman, is a vital oil transit route through which millions of barrels of oil are transported every day.
“Still, the market reaction has been very modest, so there is room for disappointment if things were to escalate,” Gijsels conceded on Monday.
Tesla’s upcoming Robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas, is increasingly looking like a game of smoke and mirrors, and a dangerous one at that.
CEO Elon Musk claims Tesla is being “paranoid with safety”, but it is taking risks for the purpose of optics.
It’s all about optics
Musk has been wrong about self-driving for years. His track record is marked by missed deadlines and broken promises.
He said:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
“Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let’s say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.”
That was in 2016, and therefore, he claimed it would happen by the end of 2017. Today, in 2025, Tesla is still not capable of doing that.
Musk has claimed that Tesla would achieve unsupervised self-driving every year for the last decade. It has become a running gag, with many YouTube videos featuring his predictions and a Wikipedia page tracking his missed deadlines.
Famously, the predictions are about Tesla achieving self-driving “by the end of the year” or “next year.”
This time, Musk has set a clear deadline of “June” for Tesla to launch its robotaxi service.
With Waymo pulling ahead in the autonomous driving race, now operating in four cities, providing over 200,000 paid rides per week, and soon expanding with 2,000 more vehicles, Musk needs a win to maintain the illusion he has been pushing for a while: that Tesla is the leader in autonomous driving.
He recently claimed about Tesla’s self-driving technology:
No one is even close. There’s really not a close second. We felt like it was a bit of an iPhone moment — you either get it or you don’t, and there’s a massive gap.
This is becoming increasingly difficult to claim amid Waymo’s expansion. Still, Musk believes that the robotaxi launch in Austin will help maintain the illusion, even though Waymo has already been operating like Tesla’s plans in Austin for years in other cities and for months in Austin itself.
Moving of the Goal Post
We have often described what Tesla is doing in Austin with its planned “robotaxi” launch as a moving of the goalpost.
For years, Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving in all its vehicles built since 2016. Musk explicitly said that customers who bought Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package would be able to “go to sleep” at the wheel of their vehicles and wake up in another city.
Now, Musk is claiming that Tesla has “solved” self-driving with its “robotaxi” launch, but it is vastly different from prior promises.
Tesla plans to operate its own small internal fleet of vehicles with dedicated software optimized for a geo-fenced area of Austin and supported by “plenty of teleoperation.” This is a night-and-day difference compared to deploying unsupervised self-driving in customer vehicles, as promised since 2016.
Musk himself is on record saying, “If you need a geofence area, you don’t have real self-driving.”
Now, Musk is on record saying that Tesla will only launch the service in a limited area in Austin and even avoid certain intersections that Tesla is not sure it can handle:
We will geo‑fence it. It’s not going to take intersections unless we are highly confident it’s going to do well with that intersection. Or it will just take a route around that intersection.
In addition to geofencing, Tesla is also utilizing teleoperation to control vehicles with human operators remotely.
Despite Tesla originally planning to launch the robotaxi service on June 12, and now “tentatively” on June 22, the automaker posted a new job listing days ago for engineers to help build a low-latency teleoperation system to operate its “self-driving” cars and robots.
The use of geofencing and teleoperation results in Tesla having the same limitations as Waymo, which Musk claimed means it’s “not real self-driving and not scalable to the customer fleet as promised by Tesla for years.
‘Paranoid’ about Safety
Musk claims that Tesla is being “super paranoid” about safety, but you have to take his word for it.
We have pointed it out before, but it’s worth repeating: Waymo tested its self-driving vehicles in Austin for six months with safety drivers and then for another six months without safety drivers before launching its autonomous ride-hailing service in the city.
As for Tesla, it tested its vehicles with safety drivers throughout Austin for a few months. Then, Musk announced in late May, only weeks before the planned launch, that it had started testing without safety drivers.
Since then, only two confirmed Tesla vehicles without drivers have been spotted testing.
Furthermore, several of those vehicles were spotted with Tesla employees in the front passenger seat. While Musk claims that there are “no safety driver”, these “passengers” pay attention at all times and have access to a kill switch to stop the vehicle.
They virtually operate like “safety drivers”, but they are on the passenger seat rather than the driver’s seat.
Tesla is currently still in the “testing” phase based on the listing with the state regulators, which also mentions “no” safety drivers:
To go back to the “optics” for a second, Tesla’s head of self-driving, Ashok Elluswamy, has shared this conveniently cropped image of Tesla’s “robotaxis” being tested in Austin:
The image crops out the passenger seat of the car in front, which would show a Tesla employee, and the driver’s seat of the trailing car, which would show a driver, as spotted in Austin over the last week.
There’s also no way to know precisely at what rates these safety passengers and remote operators are intervening on the self-driving vehicles.
Tesla has never released any intervention or disengagement data about its self-driving and ADAS programs despite using “miles between disengagements” as a metric to track improvements and Musk claiming for years that self-driving is a “solved problem” for Tesla.
Currently, the data for the combined two most recent updates (v13.2.8-9) on Tesla’s latest hardware (HW4), which is reportedly the same hardware used in Tesla’s “robotaxis” in Austin, currently sits at 444 miles between critical disengagements:
That would imply a high risk of an accident every 444 miles without a driver paying attention and ready to take control at all times.
There are currently efforts to raise concerns about Tesla’s “robotaxi” deployment in Austin.
The Dawn Project attempted to convey the potential danger of Tesla’s upcoming robotaxi fleet by demonstrating how Tesla vehicles fail to stop for school buses with their stop signs activated and can potentially run over children on the latest public Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) v13.2.9:
Musk has repeatedly highlighted that the vehicles used for the robotaxi service in Austin are the same that it currently delivers to customers, like this one used in this test.
However, they use a new, custom software optimized for Austin, with supposedly more parameters, allowing for greater performance. Still, there is no way to verify this, as Tesla has not released any data.
Electrek’s Take
I can’t lie. I’m getting extremely concerned about this. I don’t think that we can trust Musk or Tesla in their current state to launch this safely.
As I previously stated, I think Tesla’s FSD would be an incredible product if it were sold as a regular ADAS system, rather than something called “Full Self-Driving,” with the promise that it would eventually become unsupervised.
Tesla wouldn’t face a significant liability for not being able to fulfill its promises to customers, as it has already confirmed for HW3 owners. Additionally, safety would be improved, as drivers wouldn’t become so complacent with the technology.
Speaking of those failed promises, they are also what’s driving Tesla to push for this launch in Austin.
Musk badly needs a win with self-driving, and he saw an opportunity to get one by getting his gullible fanbase of Tesla shareholders excited about a glimpse at its long-promised future full of “Tesla robotaxis.”
As he previously stated, he knows full well that the way Tesla is doing this is not more scalable than Waymo even if the hardware cost per vehicle is lower. The hardware cost is negligible compared to teleoperation, development, insurance, and other expenses.
Even with all the smoke and mirrors involved with this project, it’s becoming clear that Tesla is not even ready for it.
Now, the question is whether Musk lets the June deadline slip and takes another ‘L’ on self-driving, or if he pushes for Tesla to launch the potentially dangerous service with lots of limitations.
With the federal government in complete shambles and the Texas government being too close to Musk and Tesla, I wouldn’t count on the regulators to act here. Although they probably should.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.