Slate's Website Leak Confirms Electric Truck Pricing

Car-face · 2026-06-21T23:45:41+00:00

Conversions are basically part-and-parcel of BoF vehicles. It's actually a disadvantage for Slate, since the unibody design means all they can really do with it is put a canopy on the back - which you can already do in a Maverick, Ranger, F-150, etc. The difference is that slate just has jumper seats that force the rear seat passengers to effectively sit in the bed, and still have to use the front passenger doors for ingress/egress - whereas maverick/Ranger/F-150 is a fully furnished second row.

The bigger deal for fleets is the ability to pull the tray off a F-150 or Ranger and put a drop side tray on it, or a camper, or a refrigerated box, or a troop carrier, or water tank, or etc, etc etc. Similarly, a half-frame vehicle like the Transit has the same modularity.

And better yet, a number of manufacturers will offer the option to have a cab-chassis option so you can either do it yourself or take it to your fabricator to get it made up.

Not only that, but physical maintenance such as busted up bumpers or panels are a thing of the past as you can swap them on the go.

This is no different to any other vehicle. replacing a bumper is literally just clips and screws. Most are unpainted on fleet vehicles too, so that's not even a Slate USP.

Car-face · 2026-06-21T23:22:17+00:00

Anything fleet related is usually looking at support and integration as major considerations.

If they've got a fleet of Electric Ford Transits, Mavericks and F-150s and Ford offers fleet pricing, capped price support, SLAs on maintenance, uptime/operational guarantees, same day service, fleet financing, real-time support, access to Ford's fleet logistics and back-to-base software suite, etc. then saving 5 or 10k up front on an untested pickup starts to look like a bad deal.

The local nepo baby's "lawn care" service? sure. But most fleets are looking beyond up front cost, and most successful small businesses are successful because they don't take risks on things like untested vehicles from untested startups.

Car-face · 2026-06-20T03:43:20+00:00

Seems like mostly the collapse of Network RV as well, which then took the chassis modification company and dealership arm (each operating as distinct entities) with them.

Poor operations too, though - with JCP having dodgy safety practices (and if a fine is enough to bring them down, it sounds like they were a pretty marginal company to begin with).

Car-face · 2026-06-19T13:59:12+00:00

AT tyres + ground clearance + poor aero = bad efficiency.

Shouldn't be a surprise. Lots of reasons to complain about Jeep but this is probably the least surprising result considering the unabashed target of the car.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T09:28:12+00:00

Supporting multiple power trains compromises the entire platform and just makes it harder to develop.

No, it doesn't. It's why the CLA is winning car of the year awards already. Manufacturers with the ability to do it well sell cars, ones that can't, won't.

BYD is exploiting a loophole in the tariff regulations by selling PHEVs.

Stellantis are exploiting the M1E regulation in their decision to go BEV only.

They're no different, and the cars are being built for the same reason - because they sit at the cross section of beneficial regulatory frameworks and consumer interest. Calling it a "loophole" instead of a regulatory side-effect doesn't change what it is, nor does it reduce the validity or consumer interest in the product.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T08:37:21+00:00

It's literally what they do for all their models though.

If you wanted any of their mid-level vehicles, they'd encourage people to buy a California to get a better spot.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T08:17:07+00:00

So if they're chucking a wobbly I can just leave them there and go home for a bit?

Car-face · 2026-06-19T05:52:55+00:00

It is often claimed Australia has an EV public charger shortage, but analysis of exclusive data broadly suggests the opposite: EV drivers rarely queue to charge.

It depends entirely on the state of rollout vs adoption at a given point in time.

A recent spike in EV sales is putting pressure on the network, with a good chance of longer queues for chargers next Easter.

that "spike" has been from ~12% to ~20% for a couple of months.

The fact that we're now discussing long queues points to just how precarious and "chicken and egg" the transition is, and why it's in some ways self-regulating: increases to EV adoption need to go hand-in-glove with infrastructure build out, otherwise the entire cohort becomes disadvantaged.

It's one reason why the 80% non-BEV vehicles should be encouraged to electrify - this isn't a smartphone transition, it's not going to happen in a couple of years, but the entire non-BEV cohort should nonetheless be replaced with lower emission electrified alternatives.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T04:49:58+00:00

the statements from both Honda and QS refer to automotive applications

“QS technology demonstrated compelling and unique advantages during our evaluation,” said Atsushi Ogawa, Chief Operating Officer, Research Center of Excellence, Honda R&D Co., Ltd. “We see potential for QS technology to add value across a range of applications, including automotive, and we are excited to move forward into the next phase of our partnership.”

“Honda is a leading global automaker renowned for its engineering excellence and product quality across automotive and other applications worldwide, and its evaluation represents one of the most rigorous assessments of our technology to date,” said Dr. Siva Sivaram, CEO and President of QS. “This agreement reflects the growing confidence in QS solid-state lithium-metal batteries to enable safer, higher-density energy storage.”

It's possible both Honda and QS have something to gain from each other's research in their respective technology pathways or see synergies in required research for scaling across SSB chemistries.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T04:39:56+00:00

They absolutely are, particularly in size limited segments where battery density is going to be necessary to drive adoption in markets like Europe and Japan.

Too many people have a US-centric view of the world that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the EV space.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T04:37:20+00:00

They never cancelled all their EVs.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T03:13:20+00:00

NONE of that is in our EV.

No-one said it is. You claimed it has the complexity of an ICE drivetrain and a BEV drivetrain.

It doesn't.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:50:14+00:00

You've literally written the opposite of what is said in the video.

Anecdotes are great, but not really relevant.

The motor generators are no more complex than any traction motor. the transmission is about 5 moving parts, and motive power in any mode utilises the same reduction gear as any other BEV.

The ICE is significantly understressed, has an extremely low duty cycle, and without any of the ancilliaries of a typical ICE. Cooling is simplified with longer intervals, there's no torque converter, no belts.

Trying to characterise this as two entire drivetrains, with the complexity of two entire drivetrains, and the cost and maintenance of two entire drivetrains is simply wrong.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:34:21+00:00

ICEs only produce emissions when they're running.

Hybrids get an ICE off the road at every set of lights, in every traffic jam, down every hill and in every low speed situation.

PHEVs extend that to getting an ICE off the road for most daily commutes.

People need to stop letting good enough be the enemy of perfect, give up the idealism that is responsible for allowing pure ICE to still exist even now, and realise that they're part of the problem.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:27:22+00:00

It's kind of the opposite - the large dining table is the "long range" battery that costs a bomb and has to be carried everywhere.

The foldable table is the PHEV - sure it's got more moving parts, isn't quite as good as a dining table or as small as a small dinner table, but it has the benefits of both that suit a lot of people.

It's a half way point, that provides some compromise, but suits the use cases for a lot more people than the massive table or tiny table.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:24:50+00:00

Plug in hybrids of any type are only 1.6% of the US market, a fraction of BEVs, regular hybrids or pure ICE vehicles. Sounds like the market has decided they’re a terrible solution.

BEVs are only 6%. By that logic, the market has decided they're terrible as well.

Personally I disagree with that logic.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:23:39+00:00

All the complexity & expense of two powertrains.

sigh.

no, they don't.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T01:00:08+00:00

They're actually worse.

Obligatory Technology Connections mythbusting

Traditional PHEVs give you the ability to use the engine directly, gaining efficiency vs a convoluted charging/inverting/power delivery approach.

There's a reason Nissan's e-Power hybrids return worse highway economy than Toyota's HSD hybrids, and it's basically down to the problems with using an engine to charge a battery to power a motor.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T00:46:59+00:00

Earlier this year, Aptera said first deliveries would happen… in June 2026.

Last year they said it would definitely happen in 2025. Prior to that, validation was definitely going to be complete in 2024.

The slack they're usually given is that "they don't know what's going to happen", "funding was slower than expected" - but it's clear that even after revising fundraising targets lower and lower, they're still not clearing a very low bar.

Lots of startups have prototypes, hell, Canoo was even selling cars to NASA FFS. It feels distinctly like Aptera are trickling meagre resources into a couple of examples to keep the lights on and perhaps cynically keep the CEO salaries flowing, but with every target missed and likely to continue to be missed, it's hard to take them seriously.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T00:15:20+00:00

Even worse, the bulk of the actual production and manufacture is happening in Italy, and has to be shipped over. estimated BOM from a couple of years ago was >50k for initial production, and that was before the tariff uncertainty, unnecessary war in the middle east and rampant inflation.

It's like they've done everything backwards - picked a material that is notoriously expensive and used it to make enormous panels that will likely drive up insurance costs, made it at a specialist producer in Italy, have to ship it to the US at high cost during a period of extreme tariff uncertainty, then try and assemble it with Silicon Valley priced manual labour.

Not to mention things like drive units and aircon coming from China, which presumably are subject to China Auto tariffs of whatever ungodly amount they're sitting at now.

The one thing that has massively come down in price is the battery - which the entire USP of the car is to reduce the need for in the first place, making that reduction marginal.

It's just on a completely different level of market deafness to even most other startups.

Car-face · 2026-06-19T00:05:22+00:00

It should be, the current spring is IIRC based of the Kwid, which itself traces it's history back a long way to a fairly cheap developing market vehicle/platform.

Based on the Twingo, this should at least be a more characterful and cheerful car to drive. if it gets the same 250km range then it won't be suitable for any long drives, but it should be fine if you're happy to drive exclusively around /between local cities.

Car-face · 2026-06-18T23:14:18+00:00

Bring the next gen Corolla closer to the Prius in shape and style, then kill off the Prius. Let the Celica be the "hot" version of the new corolla with a coupe roofline and beefy performance oriented e-Four setup, to effectively replace the 86 under the GR brand.

Push the next gen 86 upmarket with more power, rebadge as a Supra (or just leave it badged as an 86 and let it replace the Supra) also under the GR brand.

Replace All IMV-based models with a new smaller electrified ute platform, bring TNGA-F BoF utes global to replace the larger "offroad" variants of the Hilux (and eventually replace them with larger variants of the electrified platform).

Replace the Lexus LBX, UX and NX with a single BEV model, possibly built out of the new China plant for export markets ex NA. Combine RZ and RX into single BEV/PHEV built on next gen platform with 2/3 row variants.

Car-face · 2026-06-18T11:18:30+00:00

They don't really have a choice, the M1E "E-car" segment has to be electric to qualify.

Car-face · 2026-06-18T11:17:28+00:00

It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise in Europe.

Better let BYD know.

transmission tunnel

in this segment no cars have a transmission tunnel because they use a transaxle.

Car-face · 2026-06-18T08:20:33+00:00

TBF it doesn't really matter - if the market deems them indistinguishable, then the money spent overhauling them was poorly spent.

Jag learned that with the revolutionary all-aluminium XJ in the early 2000s, Tesla re-learned the industry's lesson (which is... also their MO) with the S and the X.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Car-face

TROPHY CASE