Tested: The 2025 Volvo EX30 Performance Copies Tesla's Worst Habit
Fun to drive
Funky, stylish interior Cons Where's the $36K version?
Dismal range and unremarkable charging
Too small for most American car buyers
Tesla's influence shows up everywhere in the 2025 Volvo EX30. You see it in the speedometer relegated to a corner of the infotainment touchscreen. You see it in the gear selector stalk that doubles as the cruise control switchgear. And you see it in the credit-card-style key that's meant to be a backup to using your phone for unlocking and starting the vehicle. All of this is cost-saving minimalism cleverly passed off as modernism, an art that Tesla—and now Volvo—has nearly perfected in its pursuit of making attainable (and profitable) EVs.
The Volvo EX30 fails to deliver its promised affordability and range, costing nearly $10K more and achieving only average range in MotorTrend tests. Despite its performance and design, it's a niche luxury EV rather than the mainstream, budget-friendly option initially promised.
This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article. Read Next
Of all the parallels between the EX30 and a Tesla, the strongest similarity is one that no automaker should imitate: the mile-wide gap between what the automaker originally promised and the car it eventually delivered.
Just two years ago, Volvo introduced the EX30 as the cheap and cheerful cure for too-expensive EVs with a $36,245 starting price and 275 miles of range. Yet the only EX30 you can buy in the U.S. right now and for the foreseeable future costs nearly $10,000 more than that and landed well short of 200 miles in MotorTrend's Road-Trip Range test. Volvo set out to build the $35K EV that Tesla has long teased and appears to have come to the same conclusion: It can't be done. (Chevy has proven otherwise.) Trading Value for Performance
It's a shame that the launch turned into a bait and switch because the $46,195 Volvo EX30 Twin Motor Performance is awesome in its own right. Imagine an electric Volkswagen GTI with 422 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what it's like to drive. Presented with a gap in traffic or an empty roundabout, the EX30 rockets through with an exuberance that matches its Moss Yellow paint.
It is not, however, a rowdy little hooligan of a hatchback as the specs suggest. Exercising characteristic restraint, Volvo delivers all that oomph as a shove rather than a gut punch. The EX30 launches with the faintest scrape of spinning tires, and power builds linearly over the first 20 or so mph. Hitting 60 mph in 3.2 seconds has never felt so civilized. When the EX30 zips past the quarter-mile mark in 11.8 seconds, it does so up against the 112-mph speed limiter that Volvo rolled out across its lineup five years ago in the name of safety.
Similarly, the EX30 steers and turns and tackles bumps capably without ever feeling overtly aggressive. Its 110-foot stop from 60 mph and 0.87 g of cornering grip are decent for a 4,190-pound vehicle on all-season tires but hardly the makings of a four-door sports car. For a Volvo, that's perfect. The EX30 Twin Motor Performance is fun to hustle and pleasant to commute in, making it a great daily driver. How to Make a Cheap Car Feel Expensive
The danger of buying the expensive version of a cheap car is that so much of a car is designed and engineered for the lowest-priced model. That's the story of the Ford Maverick. At $33,000, it feels like a value. In a $43,000 model, you can't ignore the flashing and exposed edges on many of the injection-molded plastic parts.
Like the Maverick, the EX30 uses texture and color to turn cheap interior materials into eye candy. Unlike Ford, Volvo has engineered the fit and finish so that those materials also look and—where it matters—feel expensive. The sense of quality is furthered by the cabin's thoughtful and innovative design. The glove box drops from the center of the dash to give the front passenger more kneeroom. Instead of a conventional center console, a bin slides out from below the fixed center armrest with a clever, independently sliding top plate that allows you to allocate the space for cupholders or catchall storage.
As noted at the beginning of this story, it's not hard to find where Volvo has cut cost from the bill of materials. Look at how simple the climate vents are. The front doors have been stripped of nearly all electronics, with the driver and passenger sharing two window switches in the center console to control all four windows. The front speakers all live in a soundbar running across the top of the dash, which unfortunately takes a toll on the audio system's sound quality.
What would have been easily justified trade-offs in a $36,245 EX30 are tougher to swallow at our test car's $48,395 sticker price, but the cabin is ultimately an industrial design masterpiece. Funky and original, the EX30 feels like the spiritual successor of the quirky 2008–2013 Volvo C30.
The EX30's petite size reinforces the connection with that decade-old Volvo. The four-door EX30 measures about an inch shorter than the two-door C30 (and 5 inches shorter than the Toyota Corolla hatchback). As a result, the rear seats are only functional if your kids have the anatomy of a Squishmallow and emptying a full Costco cart into the EX30's 12.4-cubic-foot cargo hold will test your Tetris skills.
The most consequential cost-cutting measure naturally shows up in what's the most expensive part of any EV, the battery. The EX30's lithium-ion pack stores 64.0 kWh of electricity, less than the late (but soon-to-be-resurrected) Chevrolet Bolt EV. Officially, the Volvo EX30 Twin Motor Performance is rated for a reasonable 253 miles on a full charge. At a steady 70 mph in the real world, though, we achieved an impractical 180 miles. That 29 percent gap between the window sticker and our measurement (which admittedly only looks at 95 percent of a full charge) makes the EX30 one of the worst performers in the MotorTrend Road-Trip Range test.
Its fast-charging performance is similarly underwhelming. Power peaks at 153 kW and quickly tapers off, delivering enough juice in 15 minutes to cover just 87 miles at 70 mph. Given the EX30's size, limited range, and mediocre charging, there are far better options at this price point—pretty much any EV at this price point—for anyone planning on road-tripping their electric vehicle. Getting Techy
Tesla's influence is palpable in the nearly button-free dashboard. The EX30 runs nearly all its major controls through a scaled-down version of the Android Automotive–based infotainment system found in the larger EX90. Thankfully the EX30 hasn't been plagued by the litany of software quality complaints owners have logged against Volvo's new flagship EV, and our reviewers took to the user interface quickly. We like that you can download apps such as Spotify and Waze directly to the 12.3-inch touchscreen and that it offers the familiar comfort of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto for those who aren't ready for such newfangled ideas.
The EX30 comes in two versions, the standard Plus trim and the $1,700 Ultra upgrade that adds a 360-degree camera system, automated parking, ambient cabin lighting, a cabin air filter, LED headlights, and Pilot Assist, Volvo's conservative take on Tesla's Full Self-Driving. It can center the EX30 in its lane, slow or accelerate with traffic, and even guide the vehicle through a lane change, but all of this requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. We appreciate a cautious, safety-first approach, but the value of Pilot Assist seems marginal compared to Ford's BlueCruise or GM's Super Cruise. Given its limited capabilities, we'd be inclined to pass on the Ultra trim to try to keep the price in check. A Lesson Learned?
The Volvo EX30 Twin Motor Performance's straight-line speed, polished driving dynamics, and fetching design tug at our emotions, but it's hard not to feel jilted once you climb out of the driver's seat and look at the vehicle in the larger context. Volvo originally pitched the EX30 as a value play that would get more Americans into EVs. Instead, we got a tiny hot rod of a luxury car for a niche buyer.
For now, the work of pushing EVs into the mainstream will have to be carried out by larger, cheaper, longer-range alternatives such as the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Ford Mustang Mach-E, and Chevy Equinox EV. Should Volvo someday figure out how to bring the entry, single-motor EX30 to America (specs for which are included on the U.S. media site), we hope it's learned an important lesson: Wait until you're shipping the cars to the U.S. to announce the price.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A thrilling restaurant renaissance is unfolding in this Bay Area suburb
Fremont is a sleeping giant in the Bay Area's restaurant landscape. It has long quietly impressed locals with gloriously dimpled Afghani bread, explosively flavorful Indian snacks and funky tea leaf salads. But lately, a surge of new openings have roused the colossus from its slumber — and should bring the city's dining scene more recognition at last. From scorched paneer cooked over live flame to masterful, freshly made noodles, these newcomers deliver on specific expertise and ambition. Located at the southern tip of Alameda County, Fremont is home to oversized boulevards, high incomes (a median of $170,000, according to census data), the Tesla factory and a diverse populace. More than 60% identify as Asian, including a large Afghan community and a growing South Asian population. Those demographics are reflected in the city's restaurants. The 2010s brought regional Indian food. In 2015, Din Ding Dumpling House debuted as the city's first handmade noodle and dumpling spot, according to co-owner Scott Zhang. Three years later, Varun Sapra launched his exceptional Delhi-inspired barbecue truck Keeku Da Dhaba. 'When I started, there was only one more truck, selling momos,' he said. Today there are more trucks than ever, dispensing late-night dosas, halal burgers and chaat. Many were born during the pandemic. But it wasn't until last year that the proverbial volcano began to erupt. Din Ding Dumpling House opened in a new location last August; a fire shut down its original spot in 2021. While the restaurant's extended menu has hits like dry-fried pork chops, nearly every table in the building, as if mandatory, has steamer baskets of xiao long bao. With sturdy yet delicately supple skins, the soup dumplings here make international phenom Din Tai Fung look like a journeyman. Each sip of the broth reverberates through noggin's pleasure receptors, striking a lovely balance of richness and subtlety. These dumplings are unequaled. A few steps away from the dumpling savant, Shugetsu opened last month. It's the latest expansion of Japan-born specialist for tsukemen, a Tokyo-style dipping ramen where the noodles and soup are in divorce court. In my view, the San Mateo location has made the region's finest bowl of tsukemen — even better than the much-hyped Tsujita Artisan Noodle — and I'm happy to say the Fremont restaurant is just as great. What sets it apart is the resonant smokiness of the porky, concentrated broth. The thick, springy noodles almost feel alive under the chompers. After six years of operating out of parking lots, Keeku Da Dhaba opened as a full-blown restaurant this summer. Owner Varun Sapra's secret weapon is a tangy, spiced butter and cream sauce, used to bathe expertly charred chicken thighs or blocks of paneer in decadence. On a recent visit, the restaurant was filled with fans of the truck eating sandwiches known as kathi rolls under the glow of an 'I <3 Delhi' sign. All it took was one bite of the smoky bundle for me to adopt the mantra as my own. 'People are looking for the exact same taste, the taste of India,' Sapra said. Like Keeku, Anantara was also bred out of a desire for something new — but something a little fancier. Founder Saran Gajendran was inspired by the success of predecessors like San Francisco Top 100 restaurant Copra, which kicked open the door for South Indian fine dining. However, Anantara's advantage is its location in a thriving Desi hub; Fremont's Indian population has grown from 23% in 2000 to 30% in 2020, according to census data. Gajendran saw Fremont as 'perfect soil' for his restaurant, citing South Asian residents' growing appetite for luxury dining. The buzz and cheer of the place is contagious, surrounded by tropical wallpaper and faux plants. Anantara excels at small plates: fried soft shell crab over a creamy green chutney, a red-tinted fillet of tender fish and lamb chops in a thick, spicy gravy. The sleeper hit is the Kerala-inspired egg roast, a thick mash of caramelized onions studded with boiled eggs and paired with a lightly crisp dome-like bread known as egg appam. 'Fremont is evolving in real time,' Gajendran said. 'And you can feel it.' Din Ding Dumpling House. 11-2:30 p.m., 5-9 p.m. Sunday-Monday and Wednesday-Thursday, 11-2:30 p.m., 5-9 p.m. Friday-Saturday. 3768 J Capitol Ave., Fremont. Keeku Da Dhaba. 5-10 p.m. Wednesday-Thursday and Sunday, 5-11 p.m. Friday-Saturday. 39935 Mission Blvd, Fremont.
The Verge
4 minutes ago
- The Verge
The lawyer who beat Tesla is ready for ‘round two'
The day after he won an unprecedented $243 million verdict in a wrongful death case against Tesla, attorney Brett Schreiber posted a reel on Instagram celebrating the victory. His song pick: 1992's 'Damn It Feels Good To Be a Gangsta' by the Geto Boys. 'This is a verdict that will change the world,' Schreiber wrote in the caption, as Bushwick Bill, Willie D, and Scarface rap in the background about how 'everything's cool in the mind of a gangsta.' If that sounds like hyperbole, mixed with a dose of macho boasting, you're not wrong. But in some sense, Schreiber earned his right to strut. The day before posting the reel, he stood in a Florida courtroom alongside his clients as a jury handed Tesla a major defeat. The company was partially responsible — 33 percent, to be exact — for a 2019 crash that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. (It was determined that the driver of the Tesla Model S invovled, George McGee, was mostly responsible. McGee settled with the families in 2021.) The company was ordered to pay as much as $243 million in punitive and compensatory damages to Angulo and Benavides' family. It's a huge sum, though one that could be reduced on appeal. The verdict was highly unusual, insofar as the case even went to trial. Tesla has studiously avoided facing juries in fatality cases involving its driver assist technology, preferring to settle with the injured parties. But when it has gone to trial, it typically wins, such as in two previous cases in California. The winning streak came to an end with Schreiber's case. We spoke a few days after the decision about his historic win, how he used Elon Musk's own words to bolster his case, and how Tesla could face even steeper fines in the many lawsuits that are still pending. This transcript has been edited for clarity. I've been following Tesla for a very long time and I know that the company has a pretty solid track record of avoiding these types of judgments. Why do you think this was different? Well, I mean, they did make an overture to settle the case, and for a very large sum of money. Now, it was a fraction of the verdict, but the condition of the settlement was that it would be secret. And my clients were not interested in a secret settlement. They knew that this was a case and a cause that was bigger than themselves. And it was important to them that we shine a light on what Tesla has done. My theme in my closing argument was about Tesla's choices and Tesla's words. And to your point as to why they've been successful, I think it's in part because there are two Teslas. There's Tesla in the showroom and then there's Tesla in the courtroom. And Tesla in the showroom tells you that they've invented the greatest full self-driving car the world has ever seen. Mr. Musk has been peddling to consumers and investors for more than a decade that the cars are fully self-driving, that the hardware is capable of full autonomy. And those statements were as untrue the day he said them as they remain untrue today. But then they showed up in a courtroom and they say, No, no, no, this is nothing but a driver assistance feature. 'My theme in my closing argument was about Tesla's choices and Tesla's words.' Words matter. Choices matter. … Sometime later today or tomorrow, whenever the clerk finally approves it, all of the admitted trial exhibits are going to be publicly filed on the federal docket in Miami. Documents that only I and the lawyers involved in this case have seen, which shows Tesla knew about people's constant misuse of their system. They knew how they were misusing it. They knew why they were misusing it. And they knew when they were misusing it — going back a decade. And I would encourage you and anybody else who's been following these to log on to Pacer and to pull those exhibits down because they have never been seen before. And I have been saying for well over a year that the only way that this information was ever going to become public was inside of a courtroom. And we did that, and the only reason we were able to do that was because the Benavides and Angulo families were courageous enough to stand up to the largest corporation in the world and say, No, you are not going to settle this in secret. This is going to be shared publicly. And the jury saw it with a unanimous verdict. They sent a message to Tesla. Your choices and your words matter. Do better. I wanted to ask you about how you presented this case to the jury. And specifically the role that Elon Musk and his words played. You made a very pointed show of bringing in comments from the Tesla CEO. Can you talk a little bit about the role that you think that his past comments about Tesla's Autopilot and about its self-driving capabilities played in this particular trial? [Musk's words] were central to it. … The jury is asked about the expectation of an ordinary consumer. What would an ordinary consumer expect this vehicle to do? It didn't actually matter what the driver himself thought. Now, his feelings about this were very consistent with Musk's statements, but [Musk] says these things for a reason. He says this to create this idea in the public's mind that these cars are more than they really are. He makes these comments going back to 2015. Autonomous driving is a solved problem. They are safer than humans. It will stop for anything. It knows if there's something metal and something dense in front of it, it should stop. It doesn't matter if it's an alien spaceship, he said. And we played all of those because that aligns with the law. I said, 'Look, you may know that Chick-fil-A has a cow running around telling you to eat more chicken and that LiMu the emu and Doug wants you to buy Liberty Mutual insurance. And that Geico has a gecko that peddles its products.' I said, 'No one knows who Andrew Cathy, Tim Sweeney, and Todd Combs are. They are the CEOs of those companies. And even though no one's heard of them … the decisions they make and the words they speak define what an ordinary consumer thinks of their company and the products they sell.' And I said the same is true of Elon Musk and Tesla. They cannot escape the fact that they have represented for a decade that they have invented and made a vehicle to the public that is the greatest, most advanced, Enhanced Autopilot driving vehicle the world has ever seen. And then they show up in court and they go, Well, there's no vehicle in 2019 that would have ever stopped under this scenario. It's a T intersection. It's a broadside hit. Blah, blah, blah. Well, that opened the door to me to say, 'You cannot make these statements publicly and then use as a defense in trial the fact that the car that you've claimed for a decade you invented doesn't actually exist.' The jury saw through it. This is a type of technology that is used throughout the auto industry. Other car companies have a variety of ADAS technologies that are out there. What's different about Tesla's approach? And how did that contribute to this crash, in your opinion? [GM's] Super Cruise, [Ford's] BlueCruise, right, those were similar vintage-era Level 2 systems. They had driver monitoring systems that actually worked. They use infrared cameras. They had systems that were geofenced. You could only use them on certain roadways that they were designed for. A lot of other systems at the time, I think Infiniti, Nissan, Honda, and somebody else I can't remember right now had a system where if you override the adaptive cruise control, the lane centering shuts off. Because you're either going to use it or you're not. Tesla didn't do any of those things. That was their choice. And that goes back to the whole thing that makes them the outlier. This was not a car company that got into tech. This was a tech company that got into cars. And their production process was unlike what any other responsible automotive manufacturer has ever done. Rather than ensuring that things were ready for prime time, rather than releasing a finished product, they released a beta product. But they tell you, We call it beta, but we don't really mean it's beta. Again, they use words to the point where they become meaningless. 'This was not a car company that got into tech. This was a tech company that got into cars.' I'm sure you've been online and you've seen some reactions to this verdict. I've seen a few from Tesla's fan base, which is quite substantive. And they talk about how the technology in [George] McGee's vehicle, Autopilot, is an outdated system — it hasn't been updated since 2019 — whereas most of the current system, Full Self-Driving or FSD, is supposed to be measurably better. Do they have a point? Or is it beside the point for the outcome of this jury? For the outcome of this jury, it is beside the point. We could not introduce evidence about 2023 and 2024 and later developments. But I got news for the fan base. It's not better. They've actually eliminated radar. They've got cameras only. It doesn't work. Everyone who knows anything and who's been following and paying attention in autonomous vehicle development for the last decade knows that the holy trinity of safety is lidar, radar, and cameras. You cannot create a camera-based-only system that is going to be better than a human driver. It's not possible. It's not done. They sure as heck haven't done it. And their fusion system … continues to fail. You will see internal documents produced by Tesla where they determine that in 6 percent of the crashes that they received information on in 2019, they themselves determined that Autopilot was at fault. It's so stupid, but my point is, it's not better. It's a three-legged stool. If you take one of the legs out, the other two fall down. Like I said, I'll tip my hat to Waymo. I'll tip my hat to those guys. They geofence. They three-dimensionally map, they tie in infrastructure, they use lidar, they use radar, they use cameras. Are they perfect? No. And that's the other thing I want to be really clear about. We are not anti-autonomous vehicle technology. We are not anti-progress. To the contrary, we think this stuff can and will save lives. It just has to be done the right way. And Tesla's done it the wrong way. And this unanimous jury who sat for three weeks listening to 40-plus hours a week of testimony and evidence felt the same way. Can you talk about what the trial revealed about how Tesla handles its Autopilot data, and also how it interacts with law enforcement when incidents arise and they need access to that data? The docket should be fully unsealed in about three weeks. The court has ordered that and has given Tesla an opportunity to file a brief about anything specifically they want to keep under wraps. I am confident that the motion that we brought for sanctions against them for withholding evidence for four years will become fully unsealed. It would be irresponsible for me to say more than what they've said, but suffice it to say, there is more to that story, and it will be set out. But to that end, I can say that Tesla has a system of gathering data. They receive it immediately after crashes. And it is a very fair, I would say almost generous, statement to say that they're not always forthright with that information. And it's in part because people just don't understand it. Law enforcement doesn't understand it. Government investigators don't understand it. Through this case, we actually understood it better than even Tesla's lawyers did. Now, the in-house people knew. And again, I can't say whose decision it was to delete the data. But somebody at Tesla knew that if this information on the heels, six weeks later after the Jeremy Banner crash occurred in Deerfield Beach, Florida, that having another Autopilot fatality, that they knew that law enforcement wanted to share with federal investigators, they knew that would be bad for business. Why they did it? Only they can answer that question. 'I am confident that the motion that we brought for sanctions against them for withholding evidence for four years will become fully unsealed.' Tesla right now is trying to roll out a robotaxi service in a number of cities. What would you say to people who are interested in this, curious about trying out these vehicles, to regulators who are weighing whether to approve Tesla's requests? I would say that this verdict hopefully sends a very clear message to Tesla. That they need to do better. They need to elevate people's lives and people's safety over greed and profits. That's what I told the jury in closing argument, that this was not only just an opportunity. I know that jury instruction talks about punishing Tesla and deterring bad conduct. But I told them really this was an opportunity for them to help Tesla, because when a company gets to a point where they're elevating profits and greed over people's lives and safety, then that is a company that has lost its way. That is a company that needs to have its course corrected. What I hope, through their efforts at developing a Level 4 system, is that Tesla will receive this message for what it was. It's an opportunity and a teachable moment to be better. The problem is … it's my understanding that it is a camera-only-based system. That's a problem. Right, the megapixels on the cameras, on a 2025 Tesla, if they're anything like what they're putting on the robotaxi, have a lower megapixel resolution than my iPhone. The human eye is 250 megapixels. Be better. There's a reason why responsible manufacturers are doing this differently. And again, is it hubris? Is it greed? I don't know. I don't know what this motivation is to double down and just try to do it the way that, Oh, we can do it this way and no one else can. I struggle with that. I'm just a lawyer. What do I know? But engineers, people who have spent decades, careers, lifetimes studying this stuff, have reached the same conclusions. So my hope is that they pause. They look at what they're doing and they find ways to do it better. To do it safer. That's what this verdict was about: sending a message that you cannot use our public roadways as your personal laboratory to test production vehicles. And then when you discover that an incident occurs, that you make an incremental change. That's what their corporate representative said. And as I said a couple of times publicly and told the jury, an incident to the families impacted is known as a funeral. These are people's lives that you're playing with. So my hope is that they really think about their approach. I hope that consumers demand that they rethink their approach. I hope that analysts looking at the impact of this verdict and potential verdicts in the future tell them that they need to do better. Because I think that's the only way that we're going to ever see it really change. It seems likely that there will need to be more of these types of verdicts before we do see some change, either from the company or from the way that the market views the company. 'Is it hubris? Is it greed? I don't know.' Now that we have this verdict, I'm curious to know what you think it's going to mean for future cases pending against Tesla? Round two, Maldonado v. Tesla, Alameda State Superior Court, 75 days from today. Tesla's going to find out. I'm the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. And I am not limited in California to a 3x multiplier on punitives. If I had asked that jury in Florida for a billion dollars, they would have given it to me. But I couldn't ask them for that. Florida law says punitives can only be three times compensatories. I asked for $104 million in compensatories. They gave me $129 [million]. I got to tell you something, as a trial lawyer, to get $25 million over your ask is unheard of. They would have given me anything I asked for, not because it was me, but because of the facts. The facts are a stubborn thing. And we get to tell those same facts with a better Autopilot defect theory. And I get to not only juxtapose Musk's lies in that case, but I juxtapose them with the testimony that I didn't have in Miami. I've only had this case for a year. I worked the Maldonado case from the beginning. And in that case, I have testimony from all of the senior Autopilot leadership: Sterling Anderson, CJ Moore, Andrej Karpathy. And I show them those same quotes that were played to that jury in Miami. I said, 'When Mr. Musk said those things, was that a true statement about production vehicles at Tesla?' To a person, they answer: Absolutely not. He not only betrayed the public, he betrayed his own engineers. Betrayal is the most powerful human emotion there is, especially when it comes to rendering a verdict and holding a company account. That's what round two is going to look like in 75 days. That should be very interesting. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Andrew J. Hawkins Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Autonomous Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Electric Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Elon Musk Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Law Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tesla Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Transportation
Business Insider
4 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The US Air Force wants to buy Cybertrucks for target practice because they may start showing up on the battlefield
The US Air Force wants to blow up some Cybertrucks. It's looking to buy two of them to use for munitions testing as they will "likely" soon start appearing on the battlefield, per documents posted on a US Government contracting website on Wednesday. The pickups are part of a larger order of 33 vehicles for "live missile fire testing" at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The contract stipulates that the Cybertrucks need only be towable, not functional, and their batteries must be removed. The procurement documents were first reported by the defense blog The War Zone. In a separate document justifying why the Tesla vehicles were specifically required, the contracting officer said that US adversaries were "likely" to begin using the stainless steel-clad trucks on the battlefield due to their durability. "In the operating theatre it is likely the type of vehicles used by the enemy may transition to Tesla Cybertrucks as they have been found not to receive the normal extent of damage expected upon major impact," the document says. The Air Force and Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, said the pickup was built to be "apocalypse proof" when it launched in 2023. Last year, Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov showed off a modified Cybertruck decked out with a machine gun that he said would be sent to the front lines in Ukraine. Kadyrov later accused Tesla of remotely disabling the would-be war machine, calling Musk "not manly." Experts previously told Business Insider the Cybertruck would be "useless" on the battlefield. The electric pickup has also faced eight recalls since its launch for issues including parts falling off and the accelerator pedal getting stuck. Musk predicted Tesla would eventually sell over 250,000 a year in 2023, but the automaker has sold only 10,700 so far this year, per auto industry consultancy Cox Automotive.
