Here's the Graveyard of Every Abandoned EV Naming Scheme so Far
The latest car news, reviews, and features.
Between rolled back sales targets, rolled back product plans, and rolled back tax credits, we seem to be straying further and further from the silent, emissions-free electric car utopia once promised by lawmakers and automakers alike. As flawed as the entire trend toward full electrification and indeed some of the cars themselves might be, one of the more laughable aspects of this whole thing might just be how bad carmakers have been at naming the things.
Companies came in hot with radical, new labels and entire nomenclatures that fell flat, confused potential buyers, and ultimately, got abandoned. Here's every one of those ambitious EV naming schemes that have been phased out… so far.
Instead of, say, capitalizing on the immense value of 'Prius,' Toyota decided to call its first current-era U.S.-market EV the bZ4X, with 'bZ' standing for 'beyond zero' (it might as well have stood for 'buzzword') and being the brand's standard prefix for future electric Toyotas. From the jump, this was a terrible name, as evidenced by the fact that the just-facelifted version of the car has already dropped the '4X' part of the moniker. A Toyota exec also confirmed to CarBuzz this week that the company would indeed start to move away from the 'bZ' thing entirely, at least stateside, in favor of 'existing names in our portfolio for brand recognition and name recognition.' The lighting in this press picture of the 2026 bZ is weirdly gloomy, almost as if Toyota's saying, 'Yeah, we hate the name, too.' Toyota
Similar to Toyota's 'bZ' setup, Volkswagen has so far denoted every one of its EVs with the 'ID' tag. There's the ID 4 crossover and the ID Buzz bus in the U.S., while the ID 3 hatchback, ID 5 and 6 crossovers, and ID 7 sedan hold down the fort overseas. Just last week, however, a board member said that the company would ditch this convention in favor of 'proper names.' Think Polo, Jetta, or Golf, but just, y'know, electric.
The ID series gets extra bonehead points for being annoyingly inconsistent with its stylized dots and spaces when the names appear in VW literature. (It's 'ID. Buzz' but 'ID.4,' but I swear I've seen 'ID.Buzz' before and also 'I.D. Buzz') Extremely helpful for online publishing and search engine optimization! Volkswagen
When Mercedes first started cooking up its EV strategy in 2016, it originally planned to have 'Mercedes-EQ' be its own subbrand, a bit like how Mercedes-AMG is (on paper, at least) its own thing. That never happened, and recent electric Benzes have even pushed the 'EQ' portion of their names back. Rather than 'EQG,' the electric G-Class is officially called the G580 With EQ Technology—no, really, that is its formal name—while the new, electric CLA's government name is CLA With EQ Technology. That said, both Mercedes and the automotive press seem to use those full names pretty rarely, and there isn't really any physical 'EQ' badging on the cars themselves. To most people, they're just the CLA and the electric G-Wagen. Now, was that so hard? Mercedes-Benz Mercedes Benz
In early 2023, Audi decided that going forward, odd-numbered models (A3, A5, A7) would be gas cars while even models (A4, A6, A8) would be electric. As a result, the new-gen A4 sedan, one of Audi's most popular models and one with quite a bit of name recognition, would henceforth be known as the A5 since it was not yet an EV.
Besides the unnecessary changing of names people have gotten used to hearing for decades, the even-odd setup's seemingly arbitrary EV-gas designation made it one of those binary distinctions that's hard to remember in practice. Like which side of the styrofoam takeout box is the top and which is the bottom; or which way the USB-A charger is supposed to plug in; or which Tokyo airport is the one close to the city—HND or NRT? I have to Google it every time. In the process of writing this story, for example, I had to check, like, five different times that I had the even-odd, gas-electric setup correct. Audi
Quick, without scrolling back up two paragraphs: Which were the electric Audis, even or odd? See? You've already forgotten.
In any case, Audi abandoned that naming scheme earlier this year, opting to add an 'E-Tron' suffix to the names of its electric cars.
While it was never the actual name of a car or series of cars, General Motors' battery and electric powertrain moniker 'Ultium' arguably deserves a place on this list. It sounded cool, I'll give it that, but it seemed to get axed with about as much rhyme and reason as it had for ever being a thing in the first place.
Underpinning GM EVs from the Equinox to the Hummer, Ultium was introduced in 2020 and mentioned pretty consistently in GM EV marketing and press materials. Late last year, the name was dumped as the company pledged to move away from a 'one-type-fits-all' approach to batteries. GMC
Got a tip or question for the author? You can reach him here: chris.tsui@thedrive.com
Chris Tsui is The Drive's Reviews Editor. He oversees the site's car reviews operation in addition to pitching in on industry news and writing his own evaluations of the latest rides. He lives in Toronto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why We're Dodging These 3 Gold CEFs (Even With Gold Soaring)
A lump of gold on a stone floor getty Here's a surprise from a die-hard closed-end fund (CEF) fan like me: Sometimes CEFs aren't your best bet. I'll admit, that's tough for me to say—especially when the average CEF yields a historically high 9.1%. (CEF yields are usually around 8.5%). That high yield partly reflects the fact that many CEFs are trading at steep discounts to their net asset value (NAV). Translation: The fund is trading for less than what its underlying portfolio is worth. That, in turn, has resulted in lower prices among some CEFs, along with higher yields (as yields and prices move in opposite directions). All of this simply means that CEFs are generally out of favor right now, which is an opportunity for us. But not every CEF is ripe for buying. We especially want to avoid the three top performers among CEFs with market caps over $200 million: ASA Gold and Precious Metals (ASA), the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) and the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The fact that these funds have booked strong runs this year shouldn't come as a surprise: They're all gold funds, and gold has taken off due to rising economic uncertainty (the usual fuel for the yellow metal). Even so, as you can see, there are some clear differences in performance here, and those are worth unpacking. Gold Funds Ycharts Above we see that the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust—with the somewhat confusing 'CEF' ticker, not to be confused with CEFs in general (in purple)—and PHYS (in blue) have similar returns to the benchmark SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) ETF (in green), at around 25%. Then there's ASA (in orange), which has more than doubled even the best of these three other funds. There is some logic at work here. For starters, PHYS and GLD really should track each other, since they both devote almost 100% of their portfolios to physical gold (both own gold bars that are locked up in vaults), and both have similar expense ratios (0.4% for GLD, 0.41% for PHYS). The lower performance of 'CEF' is also not surprising, given that the fund also holds silver, and the 'poor man's gold' hasn't done as well as its yellow counterpart this year. ASA, however, is the clear outperformer. That's thanks in part to its ownership of several gold-mining stocks. Its largest position, G Mining Ventures Inc., a Canadian firm that explores for precious metals, has nearly doubled year to date. ASA's fast short-term gain is, of course, great, but it's unlikely to last. Here's why. Note that, if we go back to 2010, the year the last of these funds, PHYS, launched, we see that GLD (again in green) outran all three of the CEFs. This shows that CEFs were poor options in the case of gold. Moreover, ASA (again in orange) was actually the worst performer, returning just 53% over 15 years, and being in the red for most of that time. ASA Underperforms Ycharts In terms of key takeaways, there are a few here. First, if you want to hold gold, this is a rare case where an ETF, not a CEF, is the better choice. Second, gold is not a great play for income, given that the highest yielder among these funds is ASA, with a puny 0.2%. Third, gold itself is a poor play for the long term, no matter how you invest in it. To see why, all we need to do is splice the S&P 500's performance (in pink below) into that last chart. Gold Underperforms Ycharts It doesn't get much clearer than that! This, however, is where the good news ends for ETF investors. Because when it comes to investing in stocks (or pretty well any other asset class, for that matter), you're far better off with CEFs. Let's take a look at the Adams Diversified Equity Fund (ADX), a CEF we've held in my CEF Insider service since its earliest days: We bought ADX in July 2017, just a few months after CEF Insider's launch. Here's how the fund—current yield: 9% (and in orange below)—has done since, as compared to the S&P 500 index fund SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), in purple, with dividends reinvested: ADX Outperforms Ycharts This chart says it all: CEFs like ADX can crush the S&P 500 and pay us generously while doing so. Plus they give us access to top-notch management and upside-generating discounts to NAV, too. Those are strengths no index fund can match. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 10% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WWDC to focus on redesigns as Apple remains sidelined on AI, Bloomberg says
Apple's (AAPL) upcoming Worldwide Developers Conference will do little to assuage fears that the iPhone maker is a laggard in AI, Blomberg's Mark Gurman reports. Instead, the event will focus on design and productivity enhancements for its long-established operating system franchises. The company's keynote address will introduce redesigned software interfaces for the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Apple Watch, in addition to more minor tweaks to the Vision Pro headset. As part of the end-to-end overhaul, the company is also making a sweeping change to its software branding, which will shift from version numbers to a year-based system. That means Apple will introduce iOS 26, iPadOS 26, tvOS 26, visionOS 26, macOS 26 and watchOS 26 – named for 2026. Internally, the operating systems are known as Luck, Charisma, Discovery, Cheer and Nepali, respectively, the author notes. The AI changes will be surprisingly minor are unlikely to impress industry watchers, especially considering the rapid pace of innovation by Alphabet's (GOOG) (GOOGL) Google, Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT) and OpenAI, the publication adds. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See the top stocks recommended by analysts >> Read More on AAPL: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Apple's growing list of issues hinders AI reboot, WSJ says Apple expands partnership in India with Tata, Reuters reports Morning News Wrap-Up: Thursday's Biggest Stock Market Stories Apple says App Store ecosystem facilitated $1.3T in developer sales in 2024 This Is How Much Analysts Expect Apple's (AAPL) EPS to Fall after Court Ruling
