BMW has strongly criticized the plan to ban internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, warning that the move could “kill an industry” if it fails to consider customer needs and charging infrastructure.
Why it matters: BMW’s stance highlights the tense debate between regulators pushing hard toward electrification and legacy brands struggling to meet the diverse needs of their customer bases.
The details:
- BMW board member Dr. Joachim Post emphasized the company’s commitment to providing the same technology and quality experience in both its electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion-engined (ICE) cars.
- BMW will not create distinct design languages for its EV and ICE models, ensuring that both types of vehicles are visually and technologically identical.
- This strategic choice sets BMW apart from rivals like Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, which have developed distinct EV identities through their EQ and ID sub-brands, respectively.
Post was blunt in his criticism of the plan to mandate only zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, stating, “If they’re not asking the customers and how [EV charging] infrastructure is coming up, how the energy prices are and all the things there. It’s stupid to do that in that way. And you can kill an industry doing it that way.”
The background: BMW has faced criticism in the past for its “technology open” approach, which involves developing EVs while continuing to invest in efficient combustion cars. However, Post believes this strategy is now being vindicated as other companies backtrack on their EV-only product strategies.
What they’re saying:
- “There should be no compromise for a customer who wants to have a combustion engine or electric powertrain to get his car with all the technologies,” said Post.
- “[EV and ICE buyers] can say that one is not looking better than the other one. It was important for us to have not unequal twins,” he added.
The bottomline: For BMW, survival depends not just on hitting emissions targets but on balancing regulations with customer demand and global realities, because betting everything on a single technology may be the riskiest move of all.
