A Fiat 500e in Giorgio Armani trim costs $37,495 and goes 149 miles. A Nissan Leaf S+ costs about $31,500 and goes 303. Ever's Andrew Lambrecht lays that comparison out flatly and concludes the Fiat is not a good value proposition, before admitting he likes the car anyway and calling it whimsical. He is right on both counts, and the contradiction is the point.
Because in the same week, Just Have a Think reports CATL's new sodium-ion cell at 175 watt hours per kilogram, with a next generation expected at 200, and a manufacturing cost put at roughly 5.1 cents per watt hour. That is about $51 per kilowatt hour at cell level. CATL reckons parity with lithium iron phosphate could arrive before the end of this year; Wood Mackenzie's analysts think it might be 2035. Either way, the floor under what a mile of range costs to build is still moving, and it is moving down.
Which makes the spread at the top harder to explain rather than easier. What Car? drove the Range Rover Electric, a 118 kilowatt hour prototype with 542 brake horsepower and a claimed 330 real-world miles, starting at £154,070 and rising past £225,000 for the SV versions. carwow's Mat Watson meanwhile got 3.8 miles per kilowatt hour and about 350 real miles out of a Volvo EX60 costing £57,000, and called it the best car in its class. The Range Rover is not being sold on efficiency and never was. But the gap between those two cars is now largely a gap in furniture and badge, not in the thing that moves you.
The clearest version of this is Gjeebs, who owns both an R2 and a Model Y and ran them side by side to Tucson. Same 184.4 miles, same conditions. The Model Y used 48.3 kilowatt hours; the R2 used 66. He makes the Model Y 26 percent more efficient, and notes the R2 finished 63 miles adrift of its own displayed range. Then the R2 recharged 10 to 80 percent faster than either of his Model Ys. About $4,000 separates the two cars. The buyer is not choosing a price point; they are choosing which compromise they would rather live with.
What to watch is whether cheap cells reach the cheap cars. Sodium is being aimed first at stationary storage, and GM's new partnership with Peak Energy is explicitly not for vehicles. If the cost floor drops and the only thing that changes is data centre backup, the $37,000 city car with 149 miles is not an anomaly. It is the shape of the market.
Three Hundred and Fifty Real Miles, and a Fake Glovebox
carwow's Mat Watson spent 300-plus miles in a Volvo EX60 P10 and averaged 3.8 miles per kilowatt hour, which on the 92 kilowatt hour pack he calculates as about 350 miles in the real world. He points out that is more than he extracted from a bigger-battery BMW claiming 500. The car runs 800-volt architecture, charges at up to 370 kW, and Volvo quotes 10 to 80 percent in 16 minutes.
He timed 0 to 60 mph at 4.27 seconds in the 510 horsepower P10, and a 60 mph stop at 34 metres, which he rates as decent for the size and weight. The boot he measures as taking nine suitcases, one more than a BMW iX3, with a 523 litre claim and a 58 litre frunk. Prices run from £57,000 to about £70,000 for the 680 horsepower range-topper.
The complaints are mostly small and mostly interface. There is no phone button on the steering wheel, so ending a misdial means hunting on the screen. The digital key has a tiny battery that needs charging on the same pad as your phone. He says the speed limit display sometimes reads wrong, and that what looks like a huge glovebox is a piece of trim you cannot open. His daughter's objection was that the rear windows only wind down part way. He still recommends buying it, and rates it the best in its class.
$37,495 for 149 Miles, and He Still Likes It
Ever's Andrew Lambrecht reviews the 2025 Fiat 500e Giorgio Armani edition, a collaboration limited to 500 US cars. On Stellantis' Stella small platform it carries a 42 kilowatt hour pack with 37.3 usable, a 12 percent buffer, and a quoted 149 miles of range. At 143 inches long it is, he says, the shortest new car for sale in the US and at 2,952 pounds the lightest new EV on the market. A single front motor makes 117 horsepower, and peak DC charging is 85 kW for 10 to 80 percent in about 30 minutes, or roughly four hours from empty at home.
The price is the problem. This one is $37,495, and he notes the 2026 entry Pop trim rises to $38,395, against a Nissan Leaf S+ at about $31,500 with 303 miles. Less range for more money, as he puts it. Cargo space is 7.5 cubic feet, there is no frunk, and he points out the radiator fan under the bonnet has no covering over the blades.
He likes it anyway. He praises the climate control toggles as genuinely intuitive, the JBL system as decent, and the Torino detailing as charming, while noting most surfaces within reach are grainy plastic and there is no standard blind spot monitor or adaptive cruise on most trims. His practical advice is to buy a used one: he says early 500e models are already trading around $20,000 to $25,000 with the same range, the same charging and an 8-year, 100,000-mile battery warranty.
The Range Rover Electric Was Designed Not to Look Electric
What Car? got an early prototype drive of the Range Rover Electric at Jaguar Land Rover's Gaydon site, and the framing from the company is that this is a Range Rover first. When Range Rover asked customers what they wanted from an EV, the presenter reports, they said do the same thing but make it electric. There is no EV badging, the grille is mostly blocked, and the new aero wheels were designed not to trap sand and debris off-road while still taking the same tyres as the petrol car.
Both motors are standard, giving 542 brake horsepower and 627 pound-feet, which the report says is the most torque of any Range Rover. The usable battery is 118.1 kilowatt hours for a claimed real-world 330 miles, on 800-volt architecture with a 350 kW maximum and 10 to 80 percent in around 21 minutes. It will also charge properly on the more common 400-volt units, and a second charging flap is optional so either side works.
Inside is identical to the combustion car apart from an S button that now means single pedal rather than sport, with a 13.1-inch touchscreen handling climate and no physical controls. He notes the brake discs carry an anti-rust coating so they still feel right after long spells of regen-only driving. Prices start at £154,070, with SV versions from £215,670 and heading past £225,000. He also notes Land Rover placed 26th of 30 brands in the 2025 What Car? reliability survey, and that there is no seven-seat version.
He Owns Both, So He Drove Them to Tucson and Back
Gjeebs owns both cars, which is why this comparison is worth something. He ran an R2 Performance on 21-inch all-seasons and a Model Y Launch Edition on 20s from Phoenix to Tucson and back, 184.4 miles each, mostly at 75 to 80 mph in roughly 102°F heat.
The efficiency gap was large. He reports the Model Y used 48.3 kilowatt hours at 262.3 watt hours per mile and finished 8.6 miles adrift of its displayed range. The R2 used 66 kilowatt hours at 356 watt hours per mile, or 2.81 miles per kilowatt hour, and finished 63 miles adrift of its displayed range despite starting with a bigger 88 kilowatt hour pack against the Tesla's 79. He makes the Model Y 26 percent more efficient over the route and puts the R2's real highway range at about 247 miles.
Charging reversed it. On a Tesla V4 supercharger with the air conditioning off, he clocks the R2 from 10 to 80 percent in 27 minutes 20 seconds for 235 miles added, which he says is two minutes quicker than a Model Y Long Range on 19s and three minutes quicker than his own Model Y on 20s. He notes the R2 held 189 kW at 40 percent where the Tesla was down to 128. His summary: take the Model Y if self-driving matters, take the R2 for comfort, ground clearance and the drop-down rear window, and accept that the software in the Tesla is still ahead.
Sodium Stopped Being a Laboratory Story
Just Have a Think's Dave Borlace argues the battery industry has quietly entered a new phase, and that the useful question is no longer which chemistry wins but which is best for a given job. His hook is CATL's announcement at the start of May 2026 of a sodium-ion cell at 175 watt hours per kilogram, with a next generation expected to reach 200. That is still short of nickel-rich lithium, but it now overlaps with lithium iron phosphate.
He explains two of the engineering choices behind it. Sodium cells can use aluminium foil for both current collectors because the anode operates at a higher potential than in a lithium cell, where aluminium would alloy with lithium and degrade, forcing the use of more expensive copper. And polyanion cathodes, built on rigid phosphate and sulphate lattices, resist the cracking that comes from repeated expansion, giving good cycle life and lower fire risk at the cost of some energy density.
The figure that caught his eye is manufacturing cost, reported at around 5.1 cents per watt hour, or about $51 per kilowatt hour at cell level. CATL suggests parity with LFP could come before the end of this year; Wood Mackenzie puts it closer to 2035. A Nature paper he cites finds virtually every major Chinese manufacturer now has an active sodium programme, and GM has partnered with Peak Energy in the US, though aimed at stationary storage rather than vehicles. Morgan Stanley models sodium at around 20 percent of the global battery market by 2030.
Bottom line: The interesting number this week is $51 a kilowatt hour at cell level, and it is being pointed at data centres. Everything else here is a reminder that what a car costs and what it costs to build have never been further apart. The Fiat is charming and indefensible. The Range Rover is magnificent and unrelated to the price of energy. The two cars actually worth arguing about, the R2 and the Model Y, are separated by roughly $4,000 and by which trade-off you can live with daily. Buy on the trade-off, not the badge.
Commentary on third-party videos. Figures and claims are as presented in the sources and have not been independently verified. Spotted an error? Tell us and we will correct it.