Yeah, I misread my source of information related to Tesla and LFP. It appears Tesla is also licensing CATL technology in order to build its LFP batteries. There was indication that they were in the process of developing their own technology however, that apparently has not come to fruition yet. So it appears the LFP batteries they’re building in the Giga, Nevada, factory are not proprietary.   I can see at some point how batteries will be a commodity, but during these early years, they can be a strategic advantage. With that said, I wonder if there shouldn’t be more collaboration between the US manufacturers on battery development in order to rid themselves of Chinese reliance.  

I would think the new target market will be fairly small when you take income into consideration and the price point they are aiming for.      They claim they aren’t abandoning their heritage, but it appears they are to me.

I don’t think the people they claim to be catering to are interested in cars

Doubtful.  There were poor people in 1974 too.  Besides, what’s the big difference between driving at $3 per gallon (in today’s dollar) and getting 15 MPG ($0.20 fuel cost per mile) back then and driving at $10 per gallon today getting 50 MPG, or same $0.20 per mile. Fact remains that when things are cheaper we tend to consume more, whether it’s food, water, gasoline, or pretty much anything.   If we had gradually increased fuel and energy prices over the last 50 years since oil crisis, I’m certain cars today would be even more efficient than 50 MPG, lowering fuel costs per mile below that of 1974.  The poor would have adapted just like everyone else and been fine.  Obviously fuel costs per mile are lower today than in 1974, which leads to people driving more.   As for the poor being affected disproportionately, remember that the gasoline superusers are not the poorest amongst us.  The top 10% of users are estimated to consume more gasoline than the bottom 60 percent.  My guess is that if gas had gradually gone from $3 to $10 per gallon over the last 50 years (in today’s dollar), vehicles like RVs, boats, private planes, etc. would also be much more fuel efficient because even those who are better off financially would not want to spend $1,000 for a fill-up.  Higher energy costs would also incentivize more energy efficient homes, living closer to work, reducing trips through better planning, etc.   Anyway, IMO we squandered a great opportunity over the last 50 years to become a much more energy-efficient country, and in the process also reduce GHGs.  Just hope we learn from past mistakes.

As they say, no guts, no glory.  Time will tell if Jag made the right move or not.  All depends if the owners have the patience to wait it out.  

still looks like a bloated tick...

Well look at how well their last ad campaign went. Also lots of news organizations have been tying that to them killing production off (which was planned anyways) as a failure of the company. 

They are using the tech to make the batteries, that is what the issue is, they aren't coming from China, plus Ford has developed their own batteries, but that is another 3-5 years out for production.  https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2025/04/24/ford-ev-battery-lithium-manganese-rich/83231092007/

That would never fly because it would make it more expensive for everyone to do and disproportionately hurt lower wage makers who often drive further to work. So it wouldn't work politically 

Adjusted for inflation, gas prices were around $3 per gallon at start of oil crisis 50 years ago, when cars reportedly only got about 14 MPG or less on average.  By comparison, a family car today similar to hybrid Accord or Camry that gets over 3 times the mileage could drive at same fuel cost per mile even if gas was around $10 per gallon.   Instead of CAFE, had government addressed fuel efficiency and desired lower consumption by gradually increasing fuel prices over the last 50 years, we would now have even more efficient cars/vehicles, and more importantly would have incentivized people to make better fuel-saving decisions.  CAFE addresses the vehicle itself but doesn’t encourage driving less in order that we collectively burn less gas overall.  Initially the goal 50 years ago was oil independence and today it’s more about reducing green house gases, but regardless we still burn a lot of gas/fuel because it’s cheap.  Please don’t get me wrong, I like stuff to be cheaper, but in this case if we really want everyone to use less gas, just make it more expensive.  I see higher energy costs as a necessary evil if we actually want significant results.