Interviews

Voltarium LLC

1. The automotive industry has made significant advances in electrification, software and vehicle intelligence. Why do you believe affordability, rather than technology, has become the industry's biggest challenge?

A manufacturer can set a vehicle’s price, but affordability depends on the income of the people buying it. That distinction is why I see affordability as the industry’s biggest challenge. Technical capability alone cannot close the gap between what a vehicle costs and what a household can afford.

The advances in electrification, software, and vehicle intelligence represent real engineering progress. I have spent much of my career working with these technologies, and I believe in their potential. But a customer can appreciate what a vehicle offers and still be unable to buy it. Their income has to cover housing, groceries, health care, and other obligations before it can support a vehicle purchase.

That is why I believe the next automotive disruption will center on affordability. The opportunity is to make technical progress accessible to people whose purchasing decisions depend on their financial circumstances. A more advanced vehicle only expands the market if more people can afford to own it.

2. When assessing affordability, how should automakers and consumers weigh the upfront purchase price against running costs, maintenance, energy consumption and long-term ownership expenses?

The purchase price tells you what it costs to acquire a vehicle. It does not tell you what it will cost to own it. Both matter because a customer needs to afford the purchase today and the expenses that follow.

I would assess those costs around how the person actually uses the vehicle. How far do they drive? Where do they get their fuel or electricity? How long do they plan to keep it? An electric vehicle charged at home and driven regularly presents a different financial picture from the same vehicle driven occasionally and charged primarily at public stations. The comparison needs to reflect the owner’s circumstances.

That assessment should include financing, insurance, energy, scheduled maintenance, repairs, and depreciation over the expected ownership period. Consumers should also consider when those expenses occur. A projected saving over several years does not help someone cover a payment or repair bill they cannot afford this month.

Automakers need to make those comparisons clear and explain the assumptions behind them. If a claim depends on a particular electricity rate, annual mileage, or ownership period, the customer should know that. My approach is to evaluate the full ownership cost alongside the household’s ability to manage the expenses as they arise. A vehicle needs to make financial sense over time and remain manageable along the way.

3. Electric vehicles continue to face price-related barriers in many markets. What are the biggest factors keeping EVs out of reach for mainstream consumers, and which of these can the industry realistically address?

One of the biggest barriers is the gap between the vehicles manufacturers choose to offer and the vehicles mainstream customers can afford. A less expensive version of a premium vehicle can still be beyond the budget of the person who needs it. We should analyze market conditions, household income, cost of living, and other financial obligations to establish a realistic vehicle price for the population we intend to serve.

Battery capacity, vehicle size, equipment, and development costs all contribute to the price. My concern is that we can make those costs harder to control when we begin with a long list of capabilities instead of a clear understanding of the customer’s needs. If the intended buyer needs dependable transportation for a daily commute, how much additional capability are we asking that person to purchase, and why?

The industry can address the choices it makes about product size, range, equipment, and the number of configurations it develops. It can also improve how engineering, purchasing, and manufacturing teams make decisions together. A cost reduction in one department has limited value if it creates a larger expense somewhere else in the vehicle program.

Manufacturers cannot control household wages or every economic condition affecting a purchase. They can control whether their product plans acknowledge those conditions. I believe the practical opportunity is to establish what the intended customer can afford, define what the vehicle needs to deliver, and hold the program accountable to both requirements.

4. Battery costs have a major influence on EV pricing. Beyond technological improvements, what changes in sourcing, manufacturing, supply chains and battery design could make electric vehicles more affordable?

I would begin with battery sizing. Systems engineering and product development need to work together from the start to establish the energy capacity the intended customer actually needs. That requires understanding driving patterns, climate, payload, charging access, and expected battery degradation. We should provide enough capacity to meet those requirements with an appropriate margin, while avoiding an oversized battery that adds cost and weight without providing enough value to the buyer.

Supply chain exposure and geopolitics also need to be part of that assessment. We need to understand where materials are mined, where they are refined, and how they reach the cell manufacturer. Concentrating those activities in a limited number of locations leaves a program exposed to trade restrictions, tariffs, transportation disruptions, and changes in international relationships.

Local sourcing and refining can help reduce transportation costs, lead times, and exposure to some of those disruptions. But proximity alone does not guarantee a lower price. The local supply base also needs sufficient production volume, consistent quality, and competitive processing costs. I would evaluate the full delivered cost and supply risk rather than make the decision solely on the supplier’s location or quoted price.

Early supplier involvement matters here. Engineering, purchasing, and manufacturing should work with suppliers before the design becomes fixed so they can assess material availability, production capability, and logistics together. Battery assemblies should also support repeatable manufacturing, inspection, and practical service. A lower assembly cost can lose its value if a minor failure later requires an expensive replacement.

The opportunity is to make these decisions together. A battery sized for its intended application, supported by a dependable supply chain, and designed for production and service gives us more ways to control cost than negotiating the cell price alone.

5. Automakers are investing heavily in advanced driver-assistance systems, connected features, software-defined vehicles and intelligent platforms. How can manufacturers continue innovating without pushing vehicle prices beyond what consumers are willing or able to pay?

I believe manufacturers need to distinguish between developing a capability and deciding where it belongs in the product lineup. A technology may deserve investment without belonging in every vehicle. The business case should explain who benefits, what problem it solves, and whether that benefit justifies the cost to the intended buyer.

We also need to account for the full cost of a feature. A connected service or driver-assistance function can require sensors, computing hardware, software development, validation, cybersecurity, and ongoing support. Looking only at the price of the hardware understates the commitment. Those expenses need to be understood before the feature becomes a product requirement.

My approach would be to establish a dependable core vehicle and evaluate additional capabilities against clear customer outcomes. For example, a driver-assistance feature should earn its place through a defined safety or usability benefit. Adding another screen or connected function should require the same discipline. Technical feasibility is a starting point, but it is not a complete business case.

Manufacturers should also be careful about assuming subscriptions solve the affordability problem. Moving a charge from the purchase price to a monthly bill still asks the customer to pay it. The service needs to provide continuing value that warrants that expense.

The leadership responsibility is to fund meaningful progress while being willing to stop features that do not justify their cost. I would measure success by the value we deliver within the customer’s budget, rather than the number of capabilities we can advertise.

6. Why is it difficult for automakers to deliver affordable vehicles without compromising safety, reliability and performance? What trade-offs should the industry reconsider?

The difficulty is that cost, safety, reliability, and performance depend on decisions that affect one another. Replacing a component with a cheaper alternative may change its durability, require additional testing, or increase warranty exposure. When cost reduction begins late in development, teams have fewer options and face more pressure to remove something the customer may need.

I would challenge the assumption that performance always means more horsepower, faster acceleration, or a higher maximum speed. For a particular customer, meaningful performance may be predictable handling, comfortable highway driving, or dependable operation in winter. We should define performance around the vehicle’s purpose before accepting the expense of exceeding those needs.

The trade-off I would reconsider is the pressure to protect a launch date when the product is not ready. When a program falls behind, compressing validation or accepting unresolved issues can appear to protect the budget. That decision can transfer the expense to customers, dealers, and warranty operations. Reliability needs time and evidence, and leadership must account for that when setting the schedule.

We should also distinguish between reducing manufacturing cost and making a vehicle cheaper to maintain. A component that takes less time to install at the factory may require hours of labor to replace in service. Those decisions deserve scrutiny because the customer eventually pays for them.

I would protect safety requirements and the durability needed for the intended use, then question the targets and business decisions that add expense without serving that purpose. Delivering an affordable vehicle requires leadership to make those choices early and hold to them when the program comes under pressure.

7. How do charging availability, installation costs, electricity prices and charging convenience affect the overall affordability of EV ownership? What needs to change to make the transition financially practical for more drivers?

We need to stop explaining EV charging as though every day is a road trip. A daily commute and a highway journey create different charging needs. Buyers need clear information about both so they can understand what charging will cost and how it will fit their routines.

For daily driving, I would begin with how much energy the driver needs to replace and where the vehicle normally sits. Depending on mileage, the vehicle, and available charging time, an existing household outlet may be sufficient. Other drivers may need a dedicated charger and electrical work. Those requirements should be assessed before purchase so installation costs do not become an unexpected expense. People without dedicated parking need practical alternatives, including reasonably priced workplace and neighborhood charging.

Road trips require dependable charging along the route. Drivers need accurate station information, understandable pricing, and realistic charging-time estimates. They should understand that a charger’s advertised maximum power does not guarantee the speed their vehicle will receive throughout the session. Better education would help people plan around their actual needs instead of assuming every stop requires a full battery.

Charging providers also need to take responsibility for equipment downtime. They should monitor whether drivers can successfully complete charging sessions, identify recurring failures, and make concerted efforts to repair affected units. An installed charger has little value to a stranded driver if it does not work. Detours and delays impose costs that a price per kilowatt-hour does not capture.

Location deserves equal attention. Not every driver wants to enter a crowded city or shopping center to charge. Rest stops, travel centers, and accessible highway locations should be part of the network. I like the direction IONNA is taking with its Rechargeries, which consider the route, amenities, and the needs of people traveling together. Drivers should have somewhere practical to stop, use a restroom, and take a break while charging.

Electricity prices ultimately influence whether that experience makes financial sense. Providers should clearly disclose energy prices and additional charges before a session begins. We should evaluate charging access by whether drivers can find a working unit, use it without an unreasonable detour, and pay a price that fits their budget. Counting installations alone does not answer those questions.

8. Can software-defined vehicle architectures, over-the-air updates and shared technology platforms help reduce development and ownership costs? Where is their cost-saving potential greatest, and what challenges could limit it?

Absolutely. Software-defined vehicles and shared platforms should be part of the affordability strategy. From my experience in electrical and electronic architecture, substantial savings become possible when we reconsider how the complete vehicle works before selecting individual components.

Manufacturers have shared platforms for generations. The Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade illustrate how distinct products can share common foundations. EVs extend that opportunity through flexible battery and propulsion arrangements that can support different vehicle categories. GM’s flexible EV platform demonstrates that approach across cars, trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles.

Rivian provides a concrete example on the electrical side. For its second-generation R1 vehicles, the company reduced its in-house electronic control units from 17 to seven and removed 1.6 miles of wiring per vehicle. That is a physical reduction in complexity, with implications for material cost, weight, connections, and assembly. It shows what becomes possible when engineers redesign the architecture instead of continuing to add controllers to an existing system.

Lucid offers another example through its zonal architecture and Ethernet ring, which it introduced in 2021. These companies have taken different approaches, but they demonstrate the importance of treating electrical hardware, communications, and software as parts of one architecture. GM is also pursuing centralized computing for future electric and gasoline-powered vehicles, so this opportunity extends beyond EVs.

The development process deserves the same attention. Companies such as A-CX are applying AI agents to software engineering while engineers direct and review the work. I see an opportunity to use AI-assisted software generation to reduce repetitive development work, lower costs, and shorten time to market. In automotive applications, those gains still need to carry through requirements, testing, and validation. Generating code faster only helps if it reduces the effort required to deliver working, verified software.

For owners, over-the-air updates can reduce service visits when an issue can be corrected through software. Shared software foundations can also allow manufacturers to distribute development and maintenance costs across compatible vehicles. Those benefits depend on maintaining support throughout the vehicle’s life and managing the complexity of different hardware and software versions.

The organizational requirement is dedicated architectural ownership. Manufacturers need systems architects with the authority to coordinate electrical, electronic, software, and mechanical decisions across current and future programs. Having specialists in separate departments does not automatically provide that ownership.

My approach would be to establish the future architecture, define common interfaces, and develop individual programs within that direction. SDVs do not eliminate complexity by themselves. They give us an opportunity to manage it deliberately, reduce unnecessary hardware, and turn development savings into more affordable products.

9. What manufacturing strategies, platform standardization or production efficiencies could help automakers reduce vehicle costs while maintaining quality and flexibility across different markets?

Manufacturers need to stop paying to solve the same production problem across multiple vehicle programs. Every unnecessary part variation creates work in purchasing, tooling, inventory, assembly, and quality control. The opportunity is to decide where differences serve the customer and where they simply add expense.

Leapmotor provides a useful Chinese manufacturing example. The company reports that components it designs and manufactures internally account for approximately 65% of its vehicle cost. That level of control gives it the opportunity to coordinate component design with production requirements and make changes without negotiating every decision across separate businesses. I would not suggest that every manufacturer produce everything internally, but I would examine where supplier handoffs add more time and expense than value.

Stellantis’ partnership with Leapmotor shows another route. Leapmotor B10 production began at Stellantis’ Zaragoza plant in October 2026, using an established facility selected for its available capacity and manufacturing expertise. That approach brings a new product into an existing industrial operation rather than requiring an entirely new factory.

Their proposed expansion also includes joint purchasing and the use of components from the Leapmotor International supply base in a future Opel SUV. The stated objectives include better affordability and shorter time to market. To me, the lesson is that manufacturers can combine their strengths instead of insisting that every brand develop and source its own solution independently.

Cross-program component use needs to reach the factory floor. Where requirements match, a common actuator, bracket, fastener, or assembly can reduce separate tooling, simplify inventory, and give operators a more consistent process. Market-specific differences can then be concentrated in defined assemblies rather than creating variations throughout the vehicle. Quality benefits when teams can repeatedly build and inspect a well-understood configuration, provided the shared part is validated for each application.

Speed comes from removing duplicated work, reducing changeovers, and resolving production problems before launch. I would measure the result through first-pass quality, rework, changeover time, and cost per completed vehicle. A factory that builds faster but spends the savings correcting defects has not improved the business. The goal is a repeatable production system that can accommodate different products without making every vehicle an exception.

10. Are automakers designing vehicles around the features consumers genuinely value, or are they adding complexity that increases costs without delivering proportional benefits? How can manufacturers better align product development with real-world customer needs?

A feature can work exactly as designed and still fail the customer. That is why I would question how manufacturers establish what people value. Asking whether someone likes a capability is different from observing whether they can use it, benefit from it, and justify paying for it.

Guru Madhavan shares a useful example from Xerox in Applied Minds: How Engineers Think. Xerox built digital printing machines with automated features intended to make tasks easier. Yet customers continued adjusting colors manually, using familiar methods. Researchers observed them at work and discovered difficulties that engineers had not understood. Software changes simplified operation and helped customers benefit from capabilities the machines already had.

Think about a driver who buys an EV with scheduled charging but starts each session manually because setting the schedule is confusing. The feature functions, and the customer paid for it, but it is not delivering its intended benefit. Adding more settings would not necessarily help. The manufacturer first needs to understand what the driver is trying to accomplish and where the experience breaks down.

This is something I emphasize when teaching systems architecture at the University of Detroit Mercy. Understanding the use case should influence the architecture from the beginning. I ask students to consider who will use the system, under what conditions, and what outcome they need. Those answers should shape how functions are organized, how components interact, and what the user must do to achieve the intended result. Demonstrating that a system function is only part of the assignment. They also need to explain how it provides value.

The same discipline belongs in automotive development. An unused feature may offer little value, or it may address a real need in a way customers find difficult to use. We need to establish which problem exists before removing the feature or investing in another version. Otherwise, we risk charging customers for complexity that does not improve their experience.

As I often say, “No design survives first contact with reality.” I would have intended customers perform everyday tasks during development without someone guiding every step. That gives teams evidence they can act on while changes are still practical. A feature earns its place when customers can use it to achieve an outcome, they value at a cost they can justify.

11. How effective are government subsidies, tax incentives and regulatory measures in making cleaner vehicles more accessible? Can the industry build a sustainable affordability model without depending heavily on public incentives?

Subsidies and incentives can stimulate purchases, but they cannot sustain market growth on their own. They can help someone make the switch sooner or bring a vehicle within reach while support is available. The risk is treating those purchases as proof that the product is affordable without that support.

I look at this through the technology adoption curve. Early adopters are more willing to accept unfamiliar technology and adjust their habits. The mass market needs a more convincing case that the vehicle fits everyday needs and household finances. Incentives can help a product reach the chasm between those groups, but they cannot carry it across. That requires a product people see enough value in to purchase without depending on a government contribution.

Government support can help buyers from both groups, and I recognize its role in encouraging adoption. But manufacturers should distinguish between demand supported by an incentive and demand that can continue after it ends. If the business case depends on that contribution indefinitely, the affordability gap remains unresolved.

Government also needs to consider whether its policies work against one another. Encouraging EV purchases while adding ownership charges to recover declining gasoline-tax revenue can weaken the financial case presented to buyers. My concern is that we ask households to change their purchasing decisions, then add expenses that make those decisions harder to sustain.

Long term, manufacturers have to address the affordability gap directly. That means establishing a price the intended population can support based on income, cost of living, and financial obligations. In my view, that is the only sustainable path to mass-market adoption. Incentives can help people make the purchase, but the vehicle needs to remain a sound financial choice when that assistance is gone.

12. What can the automotive industry learn from markets where purchasing power, infrastructure and financing options differ significantly from those in Europe and North America? How should vehicle strategies adapt to local economic realities?

Manufacturers need to understand what a vehicle makes possible in the market they want to serve. For one household, it provides personal transportation. For another, it may also support a business, carry goods, or serve several family members. Those differences change what constitutes a useful product and what buyers will prioritize.

I would examine local conditions before carrying over assumptions from another market. Road conditions, available repair services, access to parts, and the dependability of energy supplies all influence whether a vehicle is practical. A design that works well where specialist service is readily available may create difficulties where the nearest qualified technician is hours away. In that setting, straightforward maintenance and locally available replacement parts can carry considerable value.

Financing also changes the addressable market. A price that appears competitive when converted into dollars may still be inaccessible to someone without affordable credit or a documented income history. Manufacturers need to understand how people actually purchase vehicles, including the role of used vehicles and small-business income. A market assessment based only on average income can miss those realities.

The lesson is to develop around local use rather than export a familiar product and remove equipment until it reaches a lower price. Depending on the application, the right answer could be a smaller vehicle, a different propulsion option, greater durability, or easier repair. Those choices should follow evidence from the people who will buy, operate, and maintain it.

I would give regional teams a meaningful role in defining those requirements and evaluating the product. Local knowledge needs to influence decisions before they become expensive to change. Success means delivering transportation that works within that community’s economic and operating conditions, with a business model that can support it over time.

13. Could alternative ownership models, vehicle leasing, battery leasing, subscription services or more accessible financing meaningfully reduce the affordability barrier? Which approaches are most likely to deliver lasting benefits to consumers?

All of these models can help someone access a vehicle, but we need to distinguish between lowering the payment and lowering the cost. Leasing, subscriptions, and battery leasing can change when customers pay and which responsibilities they carry. They do not automatically make the underlying product more affordable.
My concern is similar to the discussion about subsidies. A lower introductory payment or an expense moved into a separate agreement can create a temporary appearance of affordability. Battery leasing, for example, can reduce the vehicle’s purchase price while adding a recurring obligation. Longer financing can lower the monthly payment while extending the debt and increasing total interest. The customer needs to understand the complete agreement, including what they will own when it ends.

We cannot forget that these businesses exist to make money. A financing company, leasing provider, or subscription operator needs to recover its costs and earn a return. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should examine how the offer works rather than accept a low advertised payment as evidence of affordability. Creative financial terms can make an expensive product appear accessible without improving the buyer’s financial position.

The approaches most likely to provide lasting benefits are those that match a real need and reduce an expense the customer would otherwise carry. Someone who needs a vehicle for a limited period may benefit from avoiding a longer ownership commitment. A business may value predictable costs and clearly assigned maintenance responsibilities. Those benefits deserve consideration, provided the terms are transparent and the arrangement makes sense over the period of use.

True affordability still requires manufacturers to reduce the cost of producing the vehicle and price it for a population whose income can support the purchase. Financial options can help customers manage that purchase, but they cannot substitute for getting the product and its price right. I would judge an offer by the customer’s total obligation and financial position at the end of the agreement, not simply the payment that gets them to sign it.

14. Looking ahead to the next five years, what are the three most important changes automakers, technology providers and policymakers must prioritize to make advanced and sustainable mobility genuinely affordable for the mass market?

Over the next five years, I would focus on three things. We need to take the politics out of EV ownership, rethink how we develop vehicles, and get serious about what people can afford.

First, buying an EV should not be a political statement. It should be a decision about whether that vehicle works for you, your family, and your budget. The same applies to buying a hybrid or a gasoline vehicle. We should be able to discuss the benefits and limitations of each without turning the conversation into an argument about someone’s beliefs.

I want manufacturers to sell people on the product and policymakers to support informed decisions. Explain what the vehicle does well, where it may fall short, and what ownership requires. People need a reason to trust the purchase, especially when they are being asked to change something familiar.

Second, we need to reconsider how we design, build, and sell vehicles. More options, more features, and more models do not automatically make a better product. Every variation needs engineering, parts, production planning, and support. At some point, we need to ask whether those differences matter enough to the customer to justify the expense.

There is a human side to this as well. Buying a vehicle is already a major financial decision. When someone has to compare overlapping trim levels, packages, subscriptions, and powertrain choices, we can make that decision harder than it needs to be. Research on choice overload supports that concern, particularly when people face complicated options and are unsure what they need.

I would rather offer a few well-considered configurations with clear purposes than ask customers to sort through differences they barely understand. Give people meaningful choices and explain them clearly. That can simplify the purchase while reducing the work required to build and support the product.

Third, we have to face the affordability problem honestly. If housing, food, insurance, and other expenses consume more of someone’s paycheck, there is less money available for a vehicle. Even a raise does not help much if living costs increase faster. Manufacturers cannot keep setting prices around what they hope customers will pay without understanding what those customers have left to spend.

Competition makes that harder to ignore. New players from countries with lower production and labor costs are changing what buyers can expect for their money. We cannot explain that advantage through wages alone. The IEA estimates that producing a battery-electric vehicle costs more than 30% less in China than in advanced economies, with batteries accounting for about one-third of the difference. We need to understand the rest of that gap and challenge the practices that keep our own costs high.

That does not mean compromising safety or asking employees to absorb every cost reduction. It means questioning duplicated work, unnecessary variations, slow decisions, and investments that do not improve the finished vehicle. Policymakers need to apply the same scrutiny to decisions that affect energy costs, trade, and domestic manufacturing.

For me, the test is straightforward: Can the people we designed this vehicle for afford to buy it and keep it? If the answer is no, we still have work to do. Five years from now, I want us to have a better answer to that question, not another financial arrangement that makes the payment look smaller.