I Love EVs. But I

I love electric cars. So when I heard this week that the F-150 Lightning and the Volkswagen ID. Buzz have been axed and paused for 2026, respectively, my response didn’t quite mirror the industry’s. I’m not sad. I’m rejoicing.

The bad EVs are finally going away, and it can’t come soon enough.

What I Mean By “Bad” EVs

I’d like to clarify what I mean by “bad” EVs, because I know the ID. Buzz and Lightning fans are already sounding off in the comments. These are not bad cars. On the contrary, I would be absolutely delighted to drive a Buzz or Lightning every day. They are luxurious, practical, refined cars. But they’re bad products.

Both represent a 2018-era view of the EV market, one where mere participation would lead to boundless growth and soaring products. Consumers were desperate for electric options, the thinking went, so electric versions of our existing iconic products must work. 

The Lightning was announced at the height of EV optimism, with a claimed $40,000 starting price that felt hard to believe. In fact, Ford never matched that price point, a sign of how much hopeful thinking factored into that era’s EV ambitions.

Photo by: Ford

That theory has been conclusively disproven. This well of natural EV enthusiasm that automakers expected to tap ran dry quickly. After all, most people don’t actually think about what powers their car, and shoppers spending $50,000-$90,000 often don’t want to gamble on something they don’t understand. 

Surely, EVs have undeniable benefits—cheaper fuel, virtually no maintenance, effortless acceleration, silent operation, no waiting for the engine to warm up in the winter and more. But many of these are quality-of-life things you appreciate over time. Meanwhile, range anxiety, charging concerns and sticker shock are much more powerful emotions, and more likely to dominate the thoughts of first-time buyers.

To win, then, you need something more powerful than that: You need to either overcome the pricing discrepancy with a gas car, or provide an overall experience so fantastic that a gas car can’t compare.  

Granted, of these two, the Lightning came closest to delivering that experience. It was a groundbreaking machine for its vehicle-to-load (V2L) capabilities in particular, able to use its large battery to power tools at a job site or even entire homes. It proved its worth in hurricanes and other natural disasters. Right before Ford pulled the plug, the Lightning was placed at the center of a pilot program to use EVs to support the grid and lower energy costs. 

If there’s one segment where road trip performance really matters, it’s minivans. And despite costing $20,000 more than comparable gas vans, the Buzz can’t really handle long highway trips. 

Photo by: Kevin Williams/InsideEVs

Yet for all of their benefits, the F-150 Lightning and ID. Buzz couldn’t manage to meet everyone’s needs in every single way, as Americans expect from their cars.

While both are better to drive than conventionally powered alternatives, they are far more expensive, too. We also know that minivan and truck buyers tend to care more about road trip and edge-case performance, and neither product did a great job of addressing that.

The Lightning had middling highway range and slow charging performance. And while the Buzz charges quickly, its paltry 234-mile range is just not acceptable for a family vehicle that costs north of $60,000. Moreover, the Buzz you actually want—one with all-wheel drive and a cheerful two-tone paint job—will run you $70,000 and deliver just 231 miles of EPA range. 

Both products succeed at being pleasant, comfortable, well-built multi-tools, and both will be great used-market values. But they both also suffer from the same fundamental problem: Large SUVs, vans and trucks cannot offer the range buyers demand at a price that is comparable to gas options. The rational argument for most buyers collapsed there. And neither was exciting enough to win enough buyers on emotion or preference alone.

It’s Good They’re Gone

Axing these models won’t just be good for Ford and VW’s bottom lines; it’s good for EV fans. I have long argued that an influx of immature products has soured optimism in the EV market. It’s not that people don’t want EVs. They just don’t want bad ones. The success of great EVs—especially the Tesla Model Y and Model 3, but also others like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Chevy Equinox EV—proves that out. 

The ZDX was one of the first EVs canceled in the wake of the Trump administration’s regulatory rollback. I say good riddance: Who exactly was asking for an Acura built by Cadillac?

Photo by: Acura

And while oversupply has contributed to lower prices for you and me—in the form of incentivized lease deals and heavy cash-on-the-hood deals—it’s unhealthy for the market. It suggests to automakers, dealerships and consumers alike that EVs are impossible to sell, undesirable and must be sold at a discount compared to gas models.

Sure, the car industry’s biggest players have a huge incentive to feel that way. Car manufacturers and dealers alike have a vested interest in prolonging their profitable gas car businesses as long as possible. But a lot of it is practical, too.

Imagine, for instance, that you run a Mercedes-Benz dealership. For the last few years, you’ve had to keep awkwardly shaped, relatively problematic and cheaply built EQEs and EQS-es on your lot, selling them at massive discounts compared to the normal, proven E-Class and S-Class. Good news: The EQE and EQS are dying, and being replaced by a new generation of massively improved electric Benzes.

The Mercedes EQS had plenty of range and solid charging speeds. But it rode worse, looked worse and felt cheaper inside than the gas S-Class, which was sold on the same showroom floor. Who could have guessed it would fail?

Photo by: Patrick George

What about the buyer who got a 2022 Toyota bZ4X, set out for a road trip, and learned hundreds of miles from home that the car can’t fast charge more than a couple of times per day? How about the person who gets a Silverado EV “Trail Boss” on 35-inch tires, only to find out that—despite costing $30,000 more—it has less off-road credibility than its gas counterpart? That buyer is better off than anyone who bought a first- or second-generation Nissan Leaf in a hot climate, and learns after a few years that its air-cooled battery is rapidly losing range?

Experiences like these have contributed to the notion that EVs are underbaked, untrustworthy and not worth the extra price. That is, of course, unavoidable: battery prices still make large-EV economics tough, and that may not change for a while. And it is no one’s fault that prices have not fallen as quickly as planned, or that consumers remain unsure of a truly revolutionary change. These are natural developments of a new market. Companies must first make mistakes before they can learn from them. 

But we have enough information to make better decisions. It is not news that the F-150 Lightning is not economically viable, or that the ID. Buzz is overpriced. So the option is simple: Do you double down on a losing product, or cut your losses and get back to work? 

A Precarious Choice

To me, the smart move is obvious. Every dollar Ford spends incentivizing and producing the current-generation Lightning is a dollar it can’t spend on developing new EVs, designed from the ground up with lessons learned. VW, too, wasn’t going to find a profitable, high-volume market for the Buzz anytime soon. While automakers can trim costs here and there, nobody is cutting $20,000 off their cost of goods sold without a clean-sheet redesign.

The next generation of VW EVs looks way, way better than its existing options.

Photo by: Volkswagen

The path to hell starts with assuming that consumer sentiment is immovable. Automakers like Stellantis are going whole-hog on V-8s and gasoline, milking every last cent of profit out of their core competency before focusing on learning or growing. Ford’s move could prove to be a costly mistake, too, if its cancellation of the Lightning and the T3 truck shows signs of a larger retreat from the EV market.

Because the market isn’t going back to gas. Worldwide internal-combustion car sales peaked in 2018 and have been falling ever since. Auto executives I’ve spoken to all have different views on how fast the EV transition will happen, but none deny the endgame: We won’t be burning gas forever.

Five years ago, the strategy to get there involved blanketing the market with as many electric options as possible. That failed. What comes next is a cycle of constant iteration, of rapid evolution. As evolution proves, for the herd to get stronger, the weak have to die.

We’re now in the “survival of the fittest” phase of EVs, and in the end, we’ll all be better off. 

Contact the author: Mack.Hogan@InsideEVs.com 

Related Stories