Major car brand discontinues its first and ONLY electric car that was hamstrung by short range & poor practicality
The MX-30, which made its world debut back in 2019 at the Tokyo Motor Show, is a subcompact crossover SUV offered as an EV and as a plug-in hybrid.
4
4
4
4
But now, it's electric variant has quietly reached the end of its production lifespan.
Launched in the UK in 2021, the MX-30 was positioned against the likes of the Kia Soul EV and Peugeot e-2008.
However, it struggled to gain traction, primarily due to its short range and limited practicality.
One of the most significant criticisms of the MX-30 - aside from its bizarre, coach-style doors - was its modest range of just 124 miles, thanks to its 35.5kWh battery.
The smaller battery size, chosen to reduce the car's weight, improved its handling and lowered its CO2 emissions during production, but also resulted in persistent range anxiety among drivers.
Indeed, today, rivals like the Jeep Avenger, Renault 4, and MINI Aceman offer ranges of around 250 miles - further highlighting the MX-30's shortcomings.
WHAT'S NEXT?
While the fully electric MX-30 has been axed, the plug-in hybrid version remains on sale in the UK.
This variant, equipped with a fully charged battery and a full tank of petrol, can cover more than 400 miles, according to Mazda.
What's more, the brand is set to give electric cars another stab next year with the 6e saloon, which is poised to be in the same segment as the top-selling Tesla Model 3.
A fully electric SUV is also in the pipeline, but the decision to temporarily pluck its only pure electric vehicle in its lineup is bold - particularly in light of the UK Government's ZEV mandate.
EZ-6
Under the current mandate, at least 28% of manufacturers' new car sales must be zero-emissions vehicles by 2025, prompting many brands to prioritise EV production.
As reported by Auto Express, a Mazda spokesperson said: 'Mazda will meet the requirements of the ZEV/VETS legislation through the various flexibilities within the scheme and the introduction of further BEVs.'
This comes as Sun Motors supremo Rob Gill recently got to road-test the new Mazda 3, featuring a gutsy 2.5-litre naturally aspirated petrol engine.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Anthony Joshua teases surprise move into another sport amid Jake Paul showdown talks
Anthony Joshua has taken to social media to make a plea to Matchroom boss Eddie Hearn over a business venture in a different sport. Since turning professional in 2013 Joshua has been attached to the Matchroom banner, a partnership that led to two-time world champion status for the 2012 Olympic gold medallist. Currently sidelined as he recovers from elbow surgery he underwent earlier this year, Joshua appears to be brainstorming ideas for life after boxing, suggesting to Hearn that they tackle football agency together. He posted on his Instagram story: 'Eddie Hearn, the family has conquered darts, snooker, pool, boxing, fishing, golf, owning a football club & you've had a presence in basketball, netball & gymnastics. 'I believe 'we' could look at the football agency industry and have a strong presence. 'Imagine we help manager the player who helped England win the World Cup. 'Call me tomorrow mate.' Eddie Hearn's father, founder of Matchroom Barry Hearn, owned English Football League club Leyton Orient for the best part of two decades, but that is the limit of the family's direct involvement in the sport. However, Matchroom's success across a variety of sports would give them instant authority in the world of football. There has been some overlap with football agencies and promotions in the past, with one of the biggest companies in soccer, Wasserman, buying Team Sauerland and creating Wasserman Boxing in 2021. In May, Joshua confirmed that he was exploring the possibility of buying shares in hometown football club Watford. The Hornets have bounced between the Premier League and Championship over the past 20 years, but whilst Joshua is fond of the club, it appeared to be more of a financial decision. He told Seconds Out: "We wanted to move into private equity, venture capital funds. As you earn, naturally, you want to save. "So rather than me spending recklessly I'm trying to invest money into certain asset classes and that was an opportunity that presented itself. 'Nothing's come of it yet. It's a serious investment. If it comes off it's one that should do well. 'If they went back to the Premier League, then I'd need to get a shop on Market Street because the traffic that would be coming through Watford would be phenomenal. 'If we don't do it then good luck to them anyway because they're a great team." Speculation has surrounded Joshua in recent days, with rumours about his next opponent. Latest Queensberry recruit Tony Yoka is one mooted option, but Jake Paul's camp have claimed that talks with Matchroom have started regarding a potential bout between their fighter and Joshua. DAZN Matchroom, Queensberry, Golden Boy, Misfits, PFL, BKFC, GLORY and more. An Annual Saver subscription is a one-off cost of £119.99 / $224.99 (for 12 months access), that's just 64p / $1.21 per fight. There is also a Monthly Flex Pass option (cancel any time) at £24.99 / $29.99 per month. A subscription includes weekly magazine shows, comprehensive fight library, exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and podcasts and vodcasts.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Enough of the billionaires and their big tech. ‘Frugal tech' will build us all a better world
There's a common misconception that state-of-the-art technology has to be expensive, energy consumptive and hard to engineer. That's because we have been persuaded to believe that innovative technology is whatever bombastic billionaires claim it is, whether that's commercial spacecraft or the endless iterations of generative AI tools. As the Canadian technologist and engineer Ursula Franklin once said, fantasies of technology would have it that innovation is always 'investment-driven, shiny, lab-born, experimental, exciting'. But more often than not, in the real world, it is 'needs-driven, scrappy, on location, iterative, practical, mundane'. The real pioneering technologies of today are genuinely useful systems I like to call 'frugal tech', and they are brought to life not by eccentric billionaires but by people doing more with less. They don't impose top-down 'solutions' that seem to complicate our lives while making a few people very rich. It turns out that genuinely innovative technology really can set people free. Last month at Berlin's once hippy, now increasingly corporatised Re:publica conference, for example, I met researchers from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), who are using technologies such as software-defined radios and spectrum sensing to allow people in low-resource environments to stay connected despite limited bandwidth, power, hardware and communication infrastructure. These technologies are the basis of the local community networks that supply coverage to the 2.5 billion people globally who lack internet access. In the Niger Delta, which suffers from toxic levels of air pollution from its oil industry, APC is setting up connections and deploying low-cost sensors that monitor the environment. These play a crucial role in how locals can advise children when to stay inside and which areas to avoid playing in. This infrastructure is managed for and by the municipality, serves a pressing need and can be installed and built by the people who deploy it. Unlike, say, ChatGPT or a Blue Origin space rocket. The fact is, while generative AI is lauded as the technology of the minute, iterations such as Dall-E 3, Google Gemini and GPT are irrelevant to those who don't have enough internet bandwidth to use them. The new digital divide is the gap between the top end of the global population – who have access to these power-intensive technologies – and those at the bottom, whose internet access, or lack of, remains static. That's why some of today's most brilliant minds are working out how to manage the trade-off between internet range and bandwidth, and whether there are obstacles in the way such as mountains and foliage. The fact is that good innovation also often involves lobbying for good. So while big tech poured hundreds of millions into watering down the EU AI Act, good tech lobbies for better internet provisions for all. Policy and innovation go hand in hand, meaning that the consequences of good technology far exceed the technology itself, extending to governance and social welfare. At Re:publica's 'maker space', I fiddled around with DIY solar-powered sensors that can be built using a Raspberry Pi computer and off-the-shelf components such as humidity sensors. I lost my partner, an engineer by training, to a microscope designed by the OpenFlexure project that was made from 3D printed materials. Microscopes are crucial for diagnosing infections but can cost millions of pounds, making them entirely inaccessible for many people across the globe. This one is lightweight, costs next to nothing and is open source, meaning that anyone can reproduce the design by 3D printing parts and cobbling them together with shop-bought motors and circuit boards. A bit like a cheap Ikea wardrobe, except that all the bits you need to assemble it can be bought inexpensively from a local electronics shop. Manufacturers from Ghana and Wales to Chile and Australia are all using OpenFlexure's designs to give people everywhere access to low-source microscopy. We might think generative AI has invaded all corners of our lives, but this couldn't be further from the truth. What is actually prolific and relevant to the majority are low-cost technologies that solve day-to-day business and social problems. While most of what we consider to be 'hi-tech' is closed off behind proprietary algorithms, the open-source technologies above all require community involvement. This can be immensely empowering, and can improve public trust: it's hard (and unwise) to give yourself over to a technology that won't tell you how it works, particularly when its predefined settings allow only for meagre approaches to 'user privacy'. As I ask my students, if you could develop an AI at your own home, and programme it to reflect your values and prioritise your safety, wouldn't you trust it more? Well, the idea isn't so outlandish – it only feels impossible because big tech firms want us to think it is. What is most outstanding about frugal innovation is not just that its technologies are impressive, but that it might actually prompt systemic change by showing people that tech can be developed locally, and not just imported from Silicon Valley. When farmer Chris Conder dug her own fibreoptic cables on her property in Lancashire, she set out 'to prove that ordinary people could do it … it wasn't rocket science'. By demonstrating that fast internet could be connected with fibre-optic cable, a digger and the desire to just get on and do it, she spawned an organisation called B4RN, which promotes community fibre partnerships. Tech bros may want you to believe there is no point in making something new unless it is difficult, inaccessible and exclusionary. But technological innovation is about collaboration as much as it is about competition. For many people across the world, a product's value isn't in a sky-high valuation, or in it being impossible to take apart (as with impenetrable iPhones). Often, the smartest technologies are those that distil a problem down to its bread and butter components in order to disseminate a solution to the masses. So, while innovative individuals and communities around the world quietly get on with improving their lives and those around them, it's high time the rest of us stopped being passive recipients of technology, and started asking ourselves what kind of world we want to live in and how to create it. Must the setting for innovation be £1bn-plus buildings like Google's new London offices in King's Cross, located in nations that can afford to stomach eye-watering training costs and compute power requirements? Or might we instead be able to steer innovation from within our very communities – or households? Eleanor Drage is a senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge's Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and co-author of the The Good Robot: Why Technology Needs Feminism
