The Chevy Equinox EV will get 319 miles of range and start at around $35,000
theverge.comDo you need to log into it in order to shift it out of park? Can you drive it without a smartphone on your person? Do certain HVAC functions require a paid subscription?
Unusually for almost any car these days, it doesn't support CarPlay, so you will be required to use whatever "smart" functions are built-in.
If GM wants to drop CarPlay and force me to use their broken laggy garbage I just won't buy their car same goes for Tesla. Not paying a subscription fee for GPS.
GM's system is built by google and it's not laggy at all. That said, I also wouldn't buy it because I want carplay.
I just want someone to figure out the perfect entertainment system has a volume knob, a radio button, and a mirror phone screen and audio button and thats it. Bonus points for allowing me to choose to mirror over wifi or over a usb that also charges.
Unfortunately, Tesla has one of the better less laggy less broken software stacks (vs. CarPlay and Google's equivalent).
Tesla and Rivian both have excellent UIs. Mostly GM & Ford don't have great ones. I don't have exp with the latest ones from them. VW software has struggled to an embarrassing degree, seems to be better lately? Porsche is in that company family but it's worked out better for them I have read.
There's no way in hell they're making money at that price. They're probably not even breaking even.
Even the higher trims are going to have extremely thin margins, if they're making money at all. Seeing as it's an $8K jump in price from the base model to the second level trim, I imagine dealers are going to make it very difficult to buy a base model.
They way they handle that (almost everyone does it this way now) is don't make very many of the low end model, maybe none at the start, then get the cost down and later make them. Suppress demand. GM didn't make enough bolts.
Tesla can almost make money selling a model 3 at $39k before any tax discounts, the RWD version with 272 miles. With the theoretical battery price of $100/kwh, each kwh is almost 4 miles of range, need 28+19/4 = need about 11 kwh of battery or $1,100 of cost addition. They don't want to increase the range on their lowest end car because people might buy it instead of the more expensive higher end prices.
I think tesla made their stock model 3 wheels sort of rental-car ugly so people would drop a couple k on wheels. or pull off the wheel covers.
If they are selling at a loss, makes me wonder if they're expecting to make up for it in software subscription sales.
Seems like they're creating a business model for someone to buy their cars, throw the computer it comes with in the trash and replace it with a general purpose one that will run the HVAC without an "insert coin to continue" prompt.
Is there a price breakdown somewhere with a costed bill of materials?
These prices are pretty meaningless. They said the same thing about Hyundai Konas but dealer prices are substantially different. Used/new car purchases continue to be a terrible value proposition.
Per CarGuru's stats page[1], prices have been in steady decline across the board. Average is 4.63% decline in the past 90 days. Hyundai/Kia are down >5% in the past 90 days. Teslas are actually down a lot more, 14% in the past 90 days and 29% YoY.
Still 27% over January 2020, compared to 17% inflation over the same period.
Car prices need to drop another 10%, and then some for them to actually become affordable.
I'm sure China's deflation problem will spread soon enough, give it time.
Inflation has stopped for most categories, and for cars it has reversed https://site.manheim.com/en/services/consulting/used-vehicle...
Same with F-150 Lightning - _insane_ levels of dealer markup.
Not any more. Within 20 miles of where I'm sitting there are two dozen Lightnings for sale at MSRP (and I'm not in a big city). Markups are not really a thing at this point. Too-high of an MSRP is causing these to languish on the lot. Ford needs to start doing rebates like the good old days.
By far the biggest problem I encountered with the Bolt EV was its transient but recurring inability to charge from DC charging stations. The Equinox has a far higher charging power, up to 150kW. It makes me wonder if they fixed anything and what.
It's more likely that the charger was broken rather than the Bolt, as the reliability of non-Tesla fast charging stations is terrible.
That said, the Bolt does have a low kWh charging rate of 55 kW, and in early models, DC fast charging was an option.
On a number of occasions I returned to a fault code on the charger blaming the car. Bolt owner fora are full of discussions about "Isolation fault detected".
If any automaker can make a car that meets these criteria, I will buy one immediately:
* it is available, new, at my local dealer, for <=$40k
* it will enable me to travel to a destination 1.5 hr away, and return, without stopping to charge
* it has a reliable fast-charging network
* doesn't stream video of me to someone else's computer
I don't really think I'm asking for much.
But a Tesla model 3 and cover the camera in the car. That's only used if you are foolish enough to pay and use FSD which almost no one does buy it now. 1.5 hours each way is 3 hours of driving, at 70 miles an hour that is 210 miles, add in 50 mile buffer and you are there.
But a far better deal is buy a used tesla model 3 with more range, used, and 4 years of battery warranty (to 120k miles) and 4 more years of drive train warranty, for well under 30.
This is why tesla model y was the best selling sedan in the entire world last year, taking it away from Toyota, an amazing thing really.
It's not available locally, and not actually available under $40k.
If I were buying today, I'd get a Prius Prime. It is available locally starting at $34,100, has enough range for me to be in EV for anything but a road-trip, and has a good network for parts and service.
Check the Tesla inventory page. Plenty of lightly used 3’s and Y’s available at steep discounts. The new Prius is by all accounts a great car. However I would put good money on it being way harder to get a Prius than a Tesla at this moment. Toyota hybrids, PHEV especially, are near unobtanium.
Which one of those does this not meet? The available inventory?
I guess Tesla doesn't have dealerships, so technically it excludes the Model 3 (which does meet all other criteria).
Edit: He stealth-edited "doesn't stream video of me to someone else's computer" into the list, so I think the point of the comment is just, "I want an EV that's as good as a Tesla but isn't a Tesla."
It might fail his "doesn't stream video of me to someone else's computer" criteria.
cover the camera in the cabin, it's not necessary unless using stupid fsd.
And it will never be inventory, base models are never stocked. With the 1LT at $35K and the 2LT at $43K it seems clear that the $35K is just a teaser price and there will be lots of obstacles thrown up if you actually want the 1LT.
It's not available, probably won't be on a lot at my local dealer when it is, and if it is, it'll probably be marked up above sticker and only in higher trims. And it comes with a CCS socket on it, which will plug right into electrify america's junk or it needs some adapter to plug into Tesla's network. I'm not holding my breath.
The devil appears and offers a car with a 3 hr range but it only goes 20 mph. Should been more careful.
A Prius Prime? Or for a little more a RAV4 Prime?
Edit: Never mind I see that’s something you’re already considering!
A Model 3 literally does all of that, except for the bit about wanting to get it at a "dealer", which I suspect you included precisely to avoid buying the Tesla. So, I guess you'll have to wait.
Or you could get a car delivered to your driveway for you like the rest of us urchins. But maybe that's just a bridge too far.
I ninja-edited in a requirement that I forgot: doesn't stream video of me to someone else's computer. The Model 3 sort of meets the above but the phone-home connectivity (and poor after-sales support) are deal breakers for me.
I'm not sure you can buy any nice car these days that doesn't include a cellular connection for some services. Otherwise, you'd be set, just buy a car that doesn't have its own cell connection (or tape over the inner camera of a Tesla and be done with it).
It can be disabled and a piece of black tape can ensure no video is sent. Will you be heading to Tesla in the morning? ;)
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-EDAD116...
>By default, images and video from the camera do not leave the vehicle itself and are not transmitted to anyone, including Tesla, unless you enable data sharing.
If I did, they wouldn't have one there for me to purchase. Their site indicates no stock and the cheapest vehicle they have can be ordered today for $40,630.
Also the outside of the thing is covered in cameras and I'm not spending $40k to drive around a car with tape all over it.
https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#overview $39k for RWD, 39k miles. Used 3's and y's are the best deal, even cheaper. Musk sucks, but the car does have the specs. Mine is almost 10 years old, lost 5 miles of range.
Tesla confused everyone when they massively cut prices, causing prices to go down across the entire EV world.
Meh, for $40k I want to be the first one farting in the seats.
cool. cool. cool. thought your issue was with the in cabin camera.
Put electrical tape over the camera.
Come on. If it was a deal-breaker, you wouldn't have forgotten it. Your criteria is simply "no Teslas". Which is fine, if that's the case. I'm not going to tell you what to buy. But trying to construct technical arguments around a brand decision just leads you to silly places like this one.
There probably is a legitimate argument in the nature of "no cars in the Tesla style", i.e. it comes with a big touch screen that runs everything and you don't control it.
There is no technical reason someone can't make an EV with mechanical HVAC controls and a navigation/audio system which is generic, independent of any other function of the car and feasibly replaced by a third party system if you don't care for it.
If Toyota made a pure EV version of a Camry they'd sell like hotcakes. I think Tesla has nearly tapped out the market for cars that cut corners drastically on usability.
>GM said the Equinox EV will beat other entry-level models in its segment, including the Tesla Model Y...
Wow. No way they're going to beat the #1 best selling EV in the world. GM is clearly still learning how to both make and sell EVs.
It's a shame they couldn't bring it in at $30k because at $35k they will have to compete against the likes of the Volvo EX30, although this edges out on range.
I know someone with a 6 year old Tesla X that now has a range of around 120 miles. This is becoming a serious impediment for them. What happens to all the buyers of these vehicles when their range is halved before their life expectancy is up? Needing to pony up another $10-15k will probably be unaffordable for the average Joe.
What year is your friend's Model X and what was the original rated range? All Model Xs sold before 2020 have an 8 year unlimited mile warranty on the drivetrain. If capacity is below 70% original, Tesla will replace the battery for free.
I thought there was enough data on how Tesla packs degrade over time, and that it was closer to 10% after 5 years.
Ours (mid-range 240 mile model 3) has lost less than 20 miles of range after 5 years/36k miles.
> I know someone with a 6 year old Tesla X that now has a range of around 120 miles.
How many miles do they have on it? Mileage that short after only 6 years should be covered by warranty. That's not degradation, that's a battery failure.
I’ll ask for more details and report back.
It just gets baked into the resale price. Some EV’s will still have 80% of their range at 20 years and other will be at 50% in 7 years based on owner behavior, battery chemistry, etc.
Though I doubt your friend’s situation would be much different with an ICE. The only way a new battery isn’t covered by the warranty is if he’s already driven 150k miles before 30% degradation hit, at which point ICE cars also see a dramatic drop in resale value.
As to ~10k to replace a battery, high mileage ICE engines end up needing a lot of work over their lifetime. Many 300k mile car see several sets of spark plugs, various belts, plus some big ticket items like transmission, catalytic converter, or cracked head gasket etc. Batteries just condense all that into one big ticket item which slowly degrades and people can budget for.
> I know someone with a 6 year old Tesla X that now has a range of around 120 miles
Yeah, I really don't think you do. That would be an outrageously wild outlier. As others are pointing out, the simple warranty terms promise a 4-5x lower degradation. I won't say it's impossible to break a battery that badly in six years, but if it happened your friend is doing some crazy stuff to their car.
More likely you're misunderstanding or they're spinning. Maybe you heard them talk about wanting to plan road trips with 120 mile legs or something (which is a pretty routine thing -- trips can actually be faster if you charge often at low capacities).
> More likely you're misunderstanding or they're spinning
That's my bet. Cold winter, some pack degradation, US highway speeds, and only considering 60% of the capacity (20%-80% for road tripping), 120 miles between supercharging stops is plausible.
My 8 year old Model S has 156k on it and gets around 254 miles on a full charge. New was around 300.
> I know someone with a 6 year old Tesla X that now has a range of around 120 miles. This is becoming a serious impediment for them.
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
> 8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
So I'm guessing either your friend doesn't read their warranty or they've gone over 150K?
There's no way this is true. That would be over 50% battery degradation and it's completed covered within the 8 year warranty.
Battery failures happen, but no 6 year old Tesla is at 60% battery degradation without a system failure.
Also, lithium ion batteries are almost entirely recyclable. Once we've mined enough and have a good recycling process in place, this will become more affordable for your average person.
Or they've been Ubering with it and put a million miles on.
Or someone is full of crap. Can't discount that possibility.
Occham’s razor..
Hrm, I believe Tesla's warranty is "8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.", so your friend should look into getting a new Tesla!
Also, and I'd love if someone could dig up some data on this, the X and S used an older battery type that has since been replaced by a new chemistry and assembly which degrades quite a lot less than the older nickel based batteries.
TLDR: I think battery degradation varies a lot by make/model/year.
This. It's covered by warranty. In 6 more years, pack prices will be much much lower.
That sucks but… duh. Its going the way of disposable consumer electronics. It will take some breakthrough in battery tech to prevent EVs from becoming as (tragically) disposable as our phones.
The economics of used EVs is going to be unfamiliar.
With an older gasoline car, at some point you're going to have a transmission repair that will cost ~$2000. The engine will throw an emissions code and you're out $1000. The fuel pump goes bad, you have to replace the timing belt, the lead acid battery dies, actually the battery was fine but your alternator is shot. And when the head gasket fails you decide it's time for another car because even though it's "only" $4000, that's the today price and you know it's only going to be a few months until the muffler rusts through or you have to do the starter motor.
EVs don't have any of that stuff. Replacing the battery is expensive, but replacing the battery could be worth it, because EVs don't have any of that stuff. Once you replace the battery it's much less likely you're going to be facing another large repair bill for a while. Give the car an aluminum frame that can't rust and we could start commonly seeing 40 year old cars on the road.
It's also not impossible that there will be replacement batteries that don't match the original spec. When new the car had a 350 mile range, now the battery is shot and the car is 20 years old and a new battery is $15,000, but a cheaper battery with a different chemistry or fewer cells is only $4000 and it has a 90 mile range. Which is more than the range on some new EVs, and maybe you've only got a 20 mile commute -- or somebody else does who would buy the car.
I'm so sorry for your friend – it sounds like they got a really bad battery. Typical range loss for a Tesla is only 10-20% over that time, and it levels out after that.
I don't think any average joe has a tesla.
Why not? The Tesla Model 3 literally sells for less than the average new car price in the US (lease for as low as $329/mo, roughly $246/mo after rebates).
The average Joe doesn't buy a new car at all. The average car in the US is more than 10 years old. So they'll have a Tesla once they've been selling in volume for 10 years, which is still another five or six years out.
They sold almost 2 million of them in 2023 so someone is buying them.
I'm not really anticipating being a car buyer for another half decade, but the #1 thing I want to judge the industry by & see progressing is MPGe (or kWh per 100km elsewhere). How efficient is your vehicle?
Leaving everyone to go figure out efficiency obfuscates what should be a defining characteristics of these offerings!
Is there really much room for improvement on efficiency without moving to very different form-factors?
I would have figured that rolling resistance and air resistance account for the huge majority of the energy usage without much room for improvement over eg a Model 3, unless you make it look like an F1 car or give it solid tires or something.
Right now some of the Model 3s are leaders of the pack, at 130+ MPGe. I expect some gains are possible, but yeah, not a ton in the current incarnation of cars.
But it's something I feel like should be at forefront of mind. Competitors should be trying to get to top of pack, but very few are >120 MPGe.
Also it should be more obvious that big E-SUVs, even if they have big range, are actually joule hogs. Seeing a 70 MPGe should be a turn off.
And if we do change architectures? The Aptera has been talking about a 337 MPGe system for a while. It's an incredibly impressive idea, but only if people have the context to understand relative efficiency versus other EVs. We need to be building the base knowledge to evaluate, to appreciate wins, and to keep car makers from regressing.
"MPGe" is an odd measure and probably doesn't actually measure what people think it does. Miles (or km) per kWh (or 100 kWh, but really that's just multiplying by 100) is going to be a better measure.
When I think of "MPGe", my incorrect intuition is that it's factoring in the cost of gas and the cost of electricity to create a cost per mile that results in an "MPGe" relative to gas prices. ie, a 60 MPGe car would cost half as much per mile as a 30 MPGe car.
But as mentioned, this is incorrect. "MPGe" is based purely on some idea of how much energy a gallon of gas has in kWh, and miles/kWh is used to calculate that.
The result is that a 60 MPGe car could cost just as much, if not more, to drive than a 30 MPG ICE if gas prices are low while electricity costs are high.
It's called miles per gallon equivalent. To me, the name is plenty clear & I don't see how one would be confused. Yes one needs to understand the price of those fuels to figure it out.
Miles per dollar would be extremely region specific. And temporally specific; it'd change as prices wax and wane. I don't see how such a MP$e would in practice work.
My understanding is much of the world does kWh/100KM, which by virtue of the constant gives a reasonable straight number. Tesla for example has a page called European Union Energy Label, where we get figures like: Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive, 13,2 kWh/100 km. It's perceived as more human friendly I guess than .132kWh/KM.
It definitely does seem like having the two units - either 1 gallon or 33.7kWh EPA - makes it really hard for consumers to understand the relative merits of their vehicles.
Most people who don't drive an abnormally large number of miles have never much cared about fuel economy because it's a relatively small part of the cost of owning a car. At $3/gallon and 12,000 miles a year, the difference between 20MPG and 40MPG is $75/month, and when gas was $1.50 it was half that.
This is even less of a concern with electric vehicles, both because any electric vehicle is already more environmentally friendly (you can feasibly charge with 100% renewable energy regardless of MPGe), and because the energy cost will always be lower than it was for gasoline vehicles, which leaves even less monetary value on the table for possible gains from efficiency improvements.
So almost nobody is going to care about that unless we end up in a world where electricity prices are dramatically higher than they are now.
Pretty sure that's a feature.
Agree. the 26.5 kWh for 100 miles at California electric prices (0.40$/kWh) is not great compared to hybrids. That's the same price it costs to run a Prius at gasoline prices of $4/gallon.
I very much bet it will not. Or if it will they will be selling at a giant loss.
Here's another claim from them in 2018 about upcoming cars requiring a technological breakthrough:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/12/577688125....
That's... something completely different? Self-driving cars with no human controls? Wrong link?
I just mean they've claimed in the past something outlandish coming soon and then didn't deliver. A 35,000 SUV EV with 300+ range would be breaking ground.
Well, now, that's actually interesting. I'll have to check back in 7-8 years, when used models should have depreciated down to half that price, and see if it makes sense to buy one.
Oh boy, another unnecessarily large crossover gets stats that would have been perfectly achievable if they just made a normal-ass sedan
They make crossovers because they sell crossovers. If you want a compact sedan, you only have a few options (most of those are luxury or super low end, sans the Model 3).
> unnecessarily large crossover
I think the ground clearance might be tricking you, the proportions make it look like a compact hatchback, just lifted.
This is a shitty submarine article.
To save you some time, here are some real prices (from the article):
2LT FWD starting at $43,295 (or $35,795 with tax credits)
2RS FWD starting at $44,795
3LT FWD starting at $45,295
3RS FWD starting at $46,795
On top of that, add $1,395 destination charge. Also, add your state taxes.
Rough realistic price is going to be $47,000. Priced exactly so you don't get to extract any value out of fuel savings during the lifetime of the vehicle ;).
Alternate headline: The Chevy Equinox EV range as low as 285 and cost up to $53,000
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/02/2024-chevy-equinox-ev-t...
And if the battery is damaged it will cost $40k to replace.
Why downvote? This happens:
I just can’t get excited about large EVs anymore.
We need cheaper, smaller EVs in the US yesterday. Looking at the options China and Europe have and comparing to what we have you can really get the sense that car companies here only care about making SUVs/trucks/and _some_ crossovers electric but don’t actually care about making small cars electric because of one thing.. profit. They know they’ll make more money on the massive cars but that’s horrible for us because it further expands the need for larger parking spots, wider roads, and I won’t even get into the fatality statistics when comparing cars of different sizes.
The only thing that will force car companies to get smaller cars into the U.S. market is regulation. Then and only then will we see true EV offerings around the 20k mark
If regulation is needed to force the existence of electric cars around the 20k mark, that means nobody wants to buy them now
If energy just cost what it actually cost (no fossil fuel subsidies) the rest would follow. The market distortion from gas subsidies has caused this mess, we didn't get to everyone driving a 5000 pound vehicle due to the free market. We got here because of backwards laws and automaker's exploitation of said laws.
Fuel or electricity should cost what it costs. Vehicles need to be taxed according to their externalities. Heavier vehicles have more externalities. Road maintenance, pollution, traffic injuries and fatalities to name a few. I think if we did these things we'd trend back towards reasonable vehicles over time, and that would be a big net win.
A good thing to campaign for is revision of the EPA rules that exempt light trucks from certain mileage rules, or the ones that increase the allowable fuel consumption based on the wheelbase of the vehicle. This is one of the major drivers increasing the size of vehicles in the US, as I understand it.
Yes, it's very backwards.
I agree - I’m not sure if there’s a simple and robust way to set up a carbon tax, but in theory it would naturally push CO2 down over time.
What fossil fuel subsidies are you referring to?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-f...
> U.S. fossil fuel subsidies stretch across the U.S. tax code, which makes detailing their costs complex. The IMF estimates they stood at $760 billion in 2022, a figure topped only by China.
I wouldn't consider the government not taking their money a subsidy. A subsidy would be the government giving them money. There are drilling specific tax breaks but it's similar to other industry specific R&D tax breaks like agriculture and tech.
"It's like these other highly subsidized industries" doesn't make it not a subsidy. "We will tax you less than other people" is absolutely a form of subsidy.
I feel like we’re really stretching the term. People don’t normally say the government is subsidizing their income because the standard deduction exists.
Phrasing it this way also just begets that tax deductions are subsidies: “It's like these other highly subsidized industries.” Its rephrasing your conclusion rather than making some new point.
We are buying them. In the US, sales of e-bikes surpassed sales of electric cars in 2022.
Interesting point although ebikes are a slightly different niche. I bet most e bike owners also have a car.
They certainly make very short trips 10x easier and more fun though.
How do you figure?
For 20k, you can deliver a certain level of EV. Features, size, performance, looks.
If there was a big enough market for that EV at 20k to make production practical, car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit.
But Americans have a lot of money and a lot of space and want big vehicles; EVs are more expensive to produce, so it’s the rich people that want EVs. And those people aren’t going to buy a little toy box.
>car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit
That might make sense if the only two options were "make nothing" and "make EVs to sell for 20k". In the presence of other options, however, the manufacturer might decide that that's not the optimal strategy. Or existing regulations, tariffs, or subsidies might be distorting the market. Automobiles are probably one of the least-free markets this side of pacemakers.
Fair, but a lot of the regulations are safety related and people would probably vote for those regulations directly if they could.
So a 20k EV probably just involves too many compromises to make it a winning proposition for both the buyer and the seller.
It's amazing to me that people still believe markets work in 2024.
If it would be working, BEVs would not be a thing.
How can something as dead simple as a market not work? Things are offered for sale, and then people buy the things. As long as there are transactions, it’s working.
Now, is the market efficient / globally optimal? No. Welcome to complex reality.
Vehicle sizing for EVs is weird because the battery is a larger proportion of the weight of the vehicle, and because of that the size of the battery is more related to how much range you want to get than how big the vehicle is. If you put a 500 mile battery in a subcompact, it isn't going to weigh that different than a midsized crossover with the exact same battery in it, and it isn't going to get much better range either because it doesn't weigh much less.
At which point sacrificing interior space doesn't yield much in terms of efficiency and makes for a poor trade off. What we're probably going to see is "family cars" with a 300+ mile range and the shape of an SUV and then "commuter cars" which are small and correspondingly have a <100 mile range, because it doesn't make a ton of sense to make something which is tiny but still heavy.
What sort of regulation would force smaller cars into the market at that price point?
The small Chinese EVs are universally poor performers in terms of crash safety. You can make a lot of concessions on price when you don't particularly care about the people inside the car. Are those the regulations you're talking about?
I like those regulations.
Not sure what you mean by small? The EUV is not very large, nor the Nissan leaf. People just don't want them here. Too small, they are both used to the big SUVs, and afraid of losing in a collision to one.
I'm not afraid of "losing" in a crash. I just don't want to have my retinas blasted to shit every time I drive at night by trucks hauling their drivers' insecure masulinity.
> We need cheaper, smaller EVs in the US yesterday.
I've owned a Bolt. It was $24K out the door (however, no tax credit at the time). And I really have a hard time understanding why you'd call it large?
This is not a large EV, it's a compact car with a lot of ground clearance. Looks like it might even be smaller than the Model 3 for passengers.
Or competition from China. Despite a lot of junk, there are some good electric cars from China.
People already buy smaller cars when it suits them.
This is really not that large a car.
In other news, the EV we will be producing will have 30,000 miles of range and will cost $25 and will solve all of the problems in your life using magic.
Until it exists, it doesn’t exist.