Signs that show its not a serious EV by a company serious about EVs

Kind of hope the regulator types pick up on these cues.

If any of these are true its not a serious EV offering by a company serious about EVs and if you care you shouldn't buy an EV from them.

1. They only plan to offer the compliance amount of 20K vehicles per year or less to maximize a tax or carbon credit advantage- this is for firms trying to fail convincingly with the public and investors while lying to regulators. Bolt and GM were included in this but so were a lot of others.

2. Econo box styling. This is for firms that wish to disparage EVs as some sort of compromise.

3. Intentional styling faux pas. Someone from the C suit comes along and insists that the new design have a certain feature calculated to handicap it sales. One of the Fords told Iococca that the Mustang would have to be lengthened by a foot- that type of thing but it generally will include something like a screwed up incongruous back end. Old leaf and new i Pace. i Pace actually has Pacer cues on the angle of the rear window. Porsche some silly black plastic cladding on one of the wheel wells in one of its concepts, Honda put that straight cut rear wheel well on its Clarity- GM puts stupid plastic waist line cues like something from a rubber made product on cars it doesn't want to sell. Unobtrusive styling is the mark of serious design.

4. ICE parts bin relics in the power train. This is very obvious when you see tubing and fluids reservoirs and vertical stacks of component off the horizontal skate you see brake designs that are less serious than what Tesla does, systems shouldn't be reliant on pads much. This is easier in dual motor designs. Also serious systems should have a full frunk and and possibly much deeper trunk as the spare tire can go where the fuel tank went in some designs. Any vertical stack components in the front or the back is just crap that can fail and its just ICE parts bin stuff showing that the maker isn't serious- that its not a serious clean sheet design but a compliance fake, it will not be as reliable guaranteed.

5. Marketing that communicates failure cues. This happened with the Jaguar i Pace. "i" is cliche and derivative in the worst way. Pace conjures slow pace yourself its a marathon granny and you're pacemaker can't handle it especially in this conventionally styled care that turns out to be a platypus because its got a rakish AMC Pacer style back window grafted on.

6. A history of trying to fail convincingly, a history of compromising public safety for profit with public uproar and a history of public government bailouts. This applies to GM and FCA. Both have been bankrupt needing government bailouts- GM even blamed its union, both were involved in the airbag controversy and GM was involved in putting lead in the gas.

8. A company that pushes the hydrogen scam or still pushes hybrids. Hydrogen is anathema more than just because fuel cells are fool cells but because hydrogen is just a petrol scam where the hydrogen is based on petrol and gives petrol an even lower physical economic efficiency than it already has with the logistical chain considered and where there is no real pollution benefit- its likely worse. Hybrids were nice trojan horses and were important for that reason- very important but they are long dead obsolete tech now- they are dual power trains and the ICE they carry around is just prone to failure obsolete junk a bag of extraneous parts- and more foot dragging. Firms that push both hydrogen and hybrids are simply not serious at this point even if they once were. Who knows, it seem the two best automakers out there might have been put off track by 311, but they still made a radically important contribution in getting the ball rolling.

9. Firms actively trying to discredit other pure EV focused makers. This seems to apply to GM more than to any other maker. But it also applies to Daimler on trucks.

10. Firms that offer premium price vehicles but with compromised performance.
This applies to most of the German makes, Porshe in particular with the Mission E but its tried to punt by knocking down the price. Too bad the next model S at the low end will probably destroy it. But it applies to Audi and MB even in their concepts, they tend to be way down on HP and torque even when dual motor.

11. Petrol shill rags talk up the firm or its product. Obvious.

12. Vehicle is not clean slate from the ground up EV offering.
There is at least one firm or two firms that think they can offer the same plaform as BEV, PHEV, Hybrid, and FC- this is just wrong, its needs to be pure BEV to be a real offering.

There are about 3 obvious makes that are serious from the ground up and serious in every way, there are of course other smaller offerings in the wings but these makers are Tesla, Nio and Rimac.