在2023年，电动汽车仿佛一夜之间滑入了主流，其受欢迎程度如日中天，让人不禁开始憧憬2035年纯电动汽车全面普及的美好愿景。然而，当时间的指针转到2024年，汽车世界的真实面貌再次浮现，提醒我们电动汽车的征途仍然漫长且充满挑战。

这一年，电动汽车市场的增长势头明显放缓。曾经那些因激励措施而蓬勃发展的市场，如德国，如今却成为了电动汽车销量增长的绊脚石。与此同时，汽车制造商们正面临着欧盟和英国日益严格的排放规定的压力，他们被迫在电动汽车和传统内燃机汽车之间寻找平衡。这种矛盾的环境导致了一个奇特的现象：电动汽车的销量在某些地区已经超过了市场需求。

然而，这只是电动汽车面临的挑战之一。与中国的贸易战、新技术法规的出台以及动荡的地缘政治环境，都让2024年成为了汽车行业的一个转折点。这一年，变革的催化剂悄然出现，有人将其视为电动化发展的黄金机遇，也有人担忧这是困难时期的开始。

在这样的背景下，汽车制造商们开始重新审视自己的纯电动汽车计划。他们发现，电动汽车的销量增长并没有达到预期，甚至在某些地区出现了下滑。欧洲市场的同比增长仅为6%，远低于2023年的28%。而这一切，很大程度上是由德国市场的衰退所推动的。

面对这样的困境，一些汽车制造商开始调整策略。保时捷、梅赛德斯、斯柯达等公司纷纷延长了内燃机或混合动力车型的使用寿命，而沃尔沃和福特等曾经坚定支持电动化的品牌也开始动摇。他们意识到，在客户需求和市场接受度方面，电动汽车的全面普及还需要更长的时间。

与此同时，中国制造的电动汽车却在欧洲市场异军突起。MG、比亚迪等公司凭借价格优势占据了巨大的市场份额，这得益于中国政府对生产成本的大量补贴。欧盟委员会为了应对这一挑战，决定对中国制造的电动汽车征收高额进口关税。然而，这一举措却引发了欧洲汽车制造商的强烈反对。

在这样的市场环境下，小型、便宜的电动汽车成为了新的焦点。汽车制造商们开始意识到，要想在电动汽车市场上立足，就必须开发出价格亲民、性能可靠的车型。中国汽车制造商已经在这方面取得了显著的成绩，他们推出的低价电动汽车在欧洲市场上获得了广泛的好评。

然而，政府的政策变化也给电动汽车行业带来了新的挑战。新政府上台后，对电动汽车行业的支持力度并没有达到预期。尽管工党在竞选时承诺了一系列以汽车和司机为重点的政策，但在秋季预算中却没有为电动汽车引入购买激励措施。这让汽车制造商们感到失望和担忧。

与此同时，ZEV（零排放汽车）规则的辩论也在激烈进行。一些汽车制造商认为，当前的ZEV规则过于苛刻，给他们带来了巨大的压力。他们呼吁政府重新制定规则，以更加合理和可持续的方式推动电动汽车的发展。而政府方面也对此表示了关注，并承诺将重新审视当前的法规。

在2024年这个充满挑战和变革的年份里，电动汽车行业经历了前所未有的波折。然而，正是这些挑战和困难，让汽车制造商们更加坚定了推动电动化发展的决心。他们相信，在未来的日子里，电动汽车一定会成为汽车行业的主流力量。而这一切，都需要他们付出更多的努力和智慧来应对当前的困境和挑战。

原文来源：autocar

以下为原文

While 2023 was the year electric cars slipped into the mainstream and their popularity boomed to a point where the 2035 EV-only target began to look achievable, 2024 was the year that brought the automotive world back down to earth with a bump and showed there really is still an awful long way to go.

The slowdown in EV sales growth, driven by incentives ending in powerhouse markets such as Germany, comes as car makers are forced to contend with increasingly strict emissions mandates in the EU and the UK, thereby creating a paradoxical environment in which electric cars must be sold in volumes that are, in many places, currently greater than the market demand.

Throw in a trade war with China, the onset of pivotal new technical regulations and a turbulent geopolitical environment, and this has been yet another transformative year for the car industry – one that will be seen in years to come as either the catalyst for change or the start of a difficult period for the sector’s electric push.

The hybrid renaissance

Around the middle of the year, car makers started to rethink their own target dates for going EV-only. The growth of electric car sales proved far slower than projected, with just a 6% year-on- year (January-September) increase in Europe, compared with 28% for the whole of 2023. Much of this downturn was driven by Germany (down 29%).

Porsche was one of the first to fold, confirming that its Cayenne – which had been due to go EV-only in 2026 – would be offered with pure-ICE and hybrid power well into the next decade.

Mercedes also extended the life of models such as the A-Class, which had previously been earmarked for the chop in favour of a new wave of EVs. Skoda was another, delaying its upcoming electric estate and extending the lifespan of its small combustion models, while Suzuki refused to set a date for its second EV, which would follow the e-Vitara, instead telling Autocar it was “monitoring” the market before any decisions would be made.

Elsewhere, stalwarts at Volvo and Ford also reneged on their pledges to go electric-only by 2030.

When Volvo made its announcement, the company’s then deputy CEO, Björn Annwall, told Autocar: “If we want to be consistent with the strategy that we believe we’re going to be fully electric but we accept that it takes longer, [then] keeping the existing cars alive a little bit longer could make sense.”

This was echoed by Marin Gjaja, chief operating officer of Ford’s Model E electrification division, who argued: “I don’t think we can go all in on anything until our customers decide they are all in, and that is progressing at different rates around the world.” He added that the brand’s previous target had been “ too ambitious”.

This, of course, made adhering to stricter emissions regulations, such as the UK’s zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate and similar laws about to be launched in the EU, even harder for car makers. The upshot was manufacturers limiting ICE car sales in order to hit these targets.

Tariff turbulence

While all of this was going on, the same European car makers were squabbling with law makers over how to deal with growing sales of China-made EVs. The likes of MG and BYD were claiming chunky market shares by undercutting rivals on price, largely thanks to production costs being heavily subsidised by the Chinese state

The European Commission’s solution was to impose large import tariffs on all electric cars made in China. BYD and Geely were taxed at 17% and 18.8% respectively, while MG owner SAIC was slapped with the highest rate of 35.3%, on top of the 10% it already paid.

Even Western car makers operating in China were affected. Among them, BMW, which makes cars such as the iX3, Mini Cooper EV and Aceman in the country, and Renault (Dacia Spring), were both hit with an additional 20.7% duty.

Geely-owned Volvo announced plans to further increase European production of some EVs in future, partly in order to avoid the tariffs. Tesla, which has a factory in Shanghai, escaped with a lower 7.8% rate due to its subsidies in China being lower than those of its rivals.

These tariffs will last for at least five years, having been ratified in November after a trial period. Although the move was intended to level the playing field for European car makers, several of the industry’s leading firms have railed against the introduction of tariffs.

Skoda sales chief Martin Jahn told Autocar: “We don’t think tariffs can solve the situation.” Renault CEO Luca de Meo said it was time to “find a deal” with China’s car industry before an all-out trade war erupted.

China is duly looking to respond, by throttling European car makers’ supply in the region, and the effects are already being felt by a struggling Volkswagen Group. The owner of Audi, Bentley and Porsche reported a decline in pre-tax profits of £2.75 billion, with “difficult decisions” to be made to balance the books, including the possibility of heavy job cuts. Along with rising fixed costs (including electricity and wages), a 10% drop in sales in China, one of its biggest markets, hit the company hard.

The cheap car returns

Until recently, EV development had centred on large, premium cars as manufacturers sought to maximise the return on their early investment and recoup the much higher production costs of electric vehicles.

But as EV demand stalled and emissions rules bit, the need for a focus on the development of small, cheaper EVs became clear.

Chinese car makers had already shown it could be done with the likes of the sub-£25,000 MG 4, which was the catalyst for the firm’s revenues reaching £1.3bn last year.

Of course, it would be up to others to see whether profits could be made from small electric cars without production being subsidised by the state.

In March, with Europe’s car brands on the back foot, de Meo went on the offensive and decried Europe’s regulations as “objectively favouring premium models”. He called on the authorities to help redress the balance by actively promoting the development of affordable cars again.

Nothing from governments was forthcoming, but the Renault Group ploughed ahead anyway and launched the Dacia Spring, a bare-bones EV offering 137 miles of range with a headline-grabbing £14,995 entry price.

Crucially, it was the cheapest electric car in Europe – but notably one that is built in China, making it a more viable business proposition.

Even with the 20.7% import tariff, there are no plans to move production to Europe.

Renault has since followed it with the made-in-France 5, priced from £22,995, and Volkswagen is readying both a sub-£25,000 ‘ID 2’ and sub-£20,000 ‘ID 1’.

New Government

This year also brought a change in government, ending 14 years of Conservative rule. Come October, there was a lot riding on new chancellor Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, but it turned out the answers to many crucial questions weren’t hiding in her shiny red briefcase.

As part of its election manifesto, Labour promised a host of car-and driver-focused pledges, including to reinstate the 2030 ban on new ICE cars (with some hybrids allowed until 2035) to provide “certainty” for car manufacturers that really didn’t know which cars they would be able to sell when we entered the next decade.

It also pledged to lower soaring insurance costs and help EV buyers by increasing the number of charging points, as well as introducing a battery health standard to promote the uptake of second-hand EVs.

Yet October’s autumn budget proved something of an anticlimax, and despite major lobbying efforts from the automotive industry’s main players, no buying incentives were introduced for electric vehicles.

Calls were made to delay the planned roll-out of vehicle excise duty on electric cars from 1 April 2025 onwards, in part because their higher list prices meant a disproportionate number of EVs would be hit by the £40,000 luxury tax threshold.

Instead, the government brought parity the other way by doubling VED for most new combustion-engined cars. Elsewhere, fuel duty was again frozen for another 12 months.

ZEV difficulties

At the time of writing, the ZEV mandate debate has taken quite a turn. For one, Stellantis cited it as the reason for proposing to close its Luton van factory.

CEO Carlos Tavares had previously threatened this outcome and branded the policy a “terrible thing for the UK”.

Hours later, the government confirmed it may redraw the ZEV rules. Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said he was “concerned” by how the current “inherited” laws “are working at the moment”.

The debate has raged for most of 2024, with car makers struggling to hit this year ’s 22% EV sales mix target, despite big fines.

Next year’s 28% target looks especially daunting. Indeed, ICE sales are now being suppressed in pursuit of the target, adding to the rising disruption. The industry will welcome these latest comments, but is the change of tone from the government too little, too late.