Let’s just say, hypothetically, you are an electric car startup that came into existence riding on the EV-hype train and all the financial investment that comes with it. You’ve built a great brand that builds great EVs, and all your marketing has been about how clean your vehicles are, how quiet they are, and how important electric cars are in the world’s push towards clean air and climate change mitigation. Let’s also say that your company has been bleeding cash for years, and now, given an American administration that doesn’t value EVs as much as the prior one, it looks like you’ll be bleeding cash for a while. Could you ever offer a hybrid?
Bank of America’s “Car Wars” industry outlook-report paints a grim picture of the near future for EVs, with The Detroit News breaking down that report:
Adoption of vehicles with all-electric powertrains has failed to meet industry expectations, with them comprising about 8% of annual U.S. sales. Limited access to charging stations, higher prices of EVs compared to gas-powered alternatives, range anxiety and more have limited adoption.
Car Wars is predicting 71 EV nameplates being offered over the next four years. That’s about half of what the forecast had expected two years ago.
[…]
Murphy underscored that automakers will best serve their shareholders by emphasizing their core business — which is gas- and diesel-powered SUVs and trucks — and leveraging connectivity to get customers returning to smaller, strengthened dealer franchises. From those revenues, then, it can invest in future technologies like EVs, autonomy and other software applications and brave threats like tariffs and Chinese competition.
Americans clearly don’t want expensive EVs (price is a big issue with EVs), but what about affordable ones? Sure! Some do. But high-range, affordable EVs are hard to pull off with an EV tax credit that may be circling the drain, and even if a company can pull it off, how many EV companies can fight for that slice of the American market looking for an affordable electric car? I don’t know the answer; maybe it’s more than I think.
But right now at this moment, being an EV company is hard. Lucid and Rivian have been burning through more cash than you can imagine, Tesla sales are dropping, and though other brands have been getting more involved in the EV market, consumer concerns remain about resale value, infrastructure, battery life (a concern that is really unnecessary, as modern batteries last way longer than anyone needs), charge times, and on and on.
None of this is obvious. Jumping from gas directly to EV is going to have growing pains (especially when you consider administration changes), and it’s no surprise that the bridge between the two — a bridge that we currently find ourselves on — is made of hybrids. Americans love hybrids.
Normally, a car company that’s burning cash and watching people buy a certain type of product would start offering its version of that certain type of product, but if you’re an EV company that has built its entire brand around a powertrain type, that becomes a bit tricky.
Both Lucid and Rivian officials have told me they’d never consider a gasoline range extender in their cars, which leads me to think they’d never consider any kind of gasoline engine. This brings me to today’s Autopian Asks: Would offering any sort of gasoline powertrain damage an EV company’s brand more than it would help its profits?
So many companies known for making internal combustion engine-cars invested in EVs when they became more popular/necessary to meet regulations, but zero EV companies have invested in gas cars now that it’s clear they’re going to be the moneymakers in the U.S. for the coming years
Could you ever see it happen?
Top Image: Rivian
I feel like the ethanol reformer/fuel cell type option would be more appealing, or maybe a turbine one. Piston engined range extenders can be loud and fairly disconnected from actual performance.
I had a Volt and while it was great when running on EV, but when the engine kicked in it was loud, not the exhaust the actual engine, sounded terrible when used to the silent propulsion when on all electric. It also rubber banded worse than any CVT as it usually had no physical connection to the wheels.
I’m not opposed to the idea though, curious to see how the Ramcharger and Scout do, but it’d be neat to see someone like VW do a rear-engined range extended EV for cheaper than a regular EV from saving on battery costs.
Especially in the US, the infrastructure is just not there yet, Europe is getting pretty good, and of course China, but there’s just vast swaths of the country that will take a while, and until there’s a charger on every corner like there are gas stations, a lot of people aren’t going to switch.
This from a guy who took a fairly easy road trip last Saturday in our EV, over 5 hours of driving total, stopped once for charging, but basically picked 1 station on our route that we knew would do well, and only had to stop to charge once, would’ve been nice to just get in the car and drive and not even have to think about it, and just stop to charge when we needed to like any gas car driver.
I bet a Diesel Cybertruck would be a big hit with the bros.
You had me excited for a natural gas generator running as a range extender for an EV. Now I’m sad.
Wasn’t there some guy on here claiming EVs were suck wouldn’t perform up to the claims and be just a waste of money in the trillions of dollars? And people shut him down said EVs wave of the future you will be able to run charge and enjoy them better than ICE? Yes it was me. Studies are now showing EVs are worse and more expensive in every way after trillions of dollars. I hope you appreciate the great advice I provided ahead of time.
What studies? The only reason EVs are struggling is because we have an American government that is actively hostile towards them. New technology is expensive, and one way to make it cheaper is to support it through subsidies. Support them rather than the oil industry and we’ll be somewhere. But hey, it’s not all bad — yes, we got rid of the evil tax credit but we also kicked millions of people off their health insurance. Win win, right?
If we can be perfectly honest that’s not the only reason. A combination of lack of charging infrastructure , battery cost and overall high prices are a bigger factor for the 8% take rate.
Sure a government could give let’s say a $75000 subsidy and the rate would be way higher but there are unintended consequences of going to that extreme.
The age of EV’s will come government giveaway or not, as charging improves and battery tech gets better.
It could happen, but it would definitely be outsourced.
It seems like every comment is missing part of the picture. The EV credit is going to be killed. Most likely by September. That is going to move even the Slate up into Ranger prices. That’s going to hurt sales wise.
EV companies are going to have to pivot in one way or another to survive. The question is do they have enough brand status to survive both the higher cost due to the loss of the credit and the hit to their brand by adopting some form engine as well as the cost to buy it/build it plus the retrofit into the existing chassis. (And maybe, the crash retesting due to the new engineering.)
This is not a trivial change like upgrading the upholstery. This is a major investment with major risk involved.
It’s almost like the price of the vehicle should not include the tax payer paid rebate. In the past cars prices were based on MSRP and advertised rebates or other reducing items. But now pretend EVs are good and take rebates and governments discount off and pretend that is the price.
I think it would be a good move. Just call them “Emergency Range Extenders” and customers feel comfy and secure. If you lose power to your house for a few days and you have a gas powered generator, would you fire it up or sit there and freeze?
So you charge your truck from your house and then run your house off your truck? You can’t get gas to charge your truck and if you don’t have a house generator to run off gas you ain’t going anywhere.
We ran our house off of a truck that was charged at the house for several days. Out of caution we did go get a charge at a DCFC when it got down to ~40% late on day 3, since they still didn’t have a firm timeline when power would be restored to our area.
Diesel could work assuming it can run off cooking oil?
If you are selling EV pickups, a range extender module whether it is an optimized ICE generator or just more batteries seems like a no brainer. More battery range, ICE range extender, or less weight and better economy for local use? Your choice, and you can change your mind. Whenever you want.
Update; Cavemen just approved the 870-page bill that few have read, that includes “eliminate electric vehicle credits on Sept. 30 of this year.”
Hey that’s an ugly stereotype. There were some cavewoman that voted for it too.
That’s probably demeaning to cave dwelling folk too.
Degenerate Slime-mold seemed too harsh, most without canes and walkers manage bipedal mobility.
Oh now you have insulted slime mold! Apparently they are good with maps and can learn and plan for the future, unlike MAGAits
“Although slime molds lack eyes, ears, and a brain, they’re smart. They keep time: if blown with cold air on the first of every hour, by the third hour, they’ll retract just before the cold snap. They exhibit memory, remembering the locations of food sources, as well as problem-solving skills, completing complex mazes in search of oatmeal. They can even recreate the hyper-efficient Tokyo subway map when oat flakes—their favorite food—stand in for population centers.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/10/right-now-can-slime-molds-think
Fortunately they move fairly slowly so it will take them a while to find you
You know, Steve McQueen‘s first movie was about the dangers of underestimating slime.
When I was preteen, I learned of slime mold being the lowest form of life known at the time. Added degenerate to insult teenagers. Yeah I’ve seen NOVA or the like cover how surprisingly aware they are.
When I was negative 6, dad did the special effects for The Blob!
The bill was read out loud in full in the Senate. They knew what was in it when they voted for it.
https://youtu.be/TIVMPMBavZU?si=LzvA1jMmMhnbiivp
Have you seen all the empty seats whenever there is a filibuster?
Oh I have. Trust me. I have. They still have no excuse. “I wasn’t there for the reading” equals a dereliction of duty.
Any vote to acquit the January 6th impeachment trial was dereliction of duty.
Absolutely!
I think they’d be fools not to try. Cut the pack size in half and add a range extender.
With the current supply of rare minerals in flux, tech that can be modularized and plugged into their current architecture would be great.
The key is making that hybrid actually be an EREV, so that you don’t have to redesign the system you have. Just figuring out how to package and address NVH an extender.
Yeah, NVH would be a challenge. On the i3 I drove the REx sounded like you were towing around a running lawn mower. On the other hand, if that encourages people to run as much as possible in battery only mode I suppose that’s a win? (See articles on why plug in hybrids often aren’t plugged in…)
My hope is for a tow rig that I can daily/do 80-90% of my driving in full EV. Then the range extender for towing and long trips, charging when it’s convenient along the way.
“Could you ever see it happen?”
Yes. And I hope I do see it happen.
I don’t see anything wrong with building PH/EREVs now and better pure EVs later when the battery tech and the charging infrastructure mature. PH/EREVs offer inherent advantages over pure EVs such as copious waste heat for cold weather cabin comfort. That’s not nothing. Its also better for the environment than just ICE.
Will they lose customer goodwill? Maybe but so what? As DT pointed out Americans are buying hybrids. So you might lose a few EV customers but gain more hybrid customers.
So analysts are worried that automakers with no ICE are on the rocks?
The current administration demands investments in ICE, on all fronts. (Well, except for the stuff in the Arctic, they’re fine letting that melt)
Nice!
I think the image (and valuation) hit would be much more substantial than any extra sales that might be gained. Lucid and Rivian are not exactly targeting the mass market with their current offerings starting about $75k and easily reaching six figures. They essentially have their 7-series and X7s but now they need the 3-series for the people who want to be in the club but can’t afford the current entry fee.
A cheaper gas or hybrid vehicle dilutes the brand and likely wouldn’t attract that buyer especially if it comes from a partnership badge engineering deal. Even a truly cheap electric probably wouldn’t be as beneficial as a Model 3/Y competitor. Rivian is seemingly almost there with their R2 and if they can get them out the door at under $40k the R3 will be huge. Lucid doesn’t seem as close to hitting that market but they just released the Gravity which will give them some runway and they have that sweet, sweet, Saudi oil money which will help.
“battery life (a concern that is really unnecessary, as modern batteries last way longer than anyone needs)”
Yeah battery tech is improving, and a lot of money is betting on big breakthroughs just around the corner, (so they should really have a standard, easily changed battery module) and current tech can last 500k. miles, but what about after 12 years? See, getting my licence in 1980, 99% of new cars were 100% worse than 7-10 year old good condition options. It has always (in my lifetime) been true that you can get twice the car for half the price used if you know what you are doing. As for the biz of selling new cars, at least make a removable “extended range” pack, so you only haul that extra weight when needed.
In the current market companies that are unable to pivot to meet demands will not survive.
Saying that it is also very bad for their image to go from “We are a green company geared towards the future” to “Due to market conditions we are changing our strategy to match consumer interest “.
Ultimately it would only be possible from an engineering standpoint for the EV maker to partner with a legacy automaker on range extenders and hybrids.
I’m not sure that’s the right question. I think a better question would be “Would offering any sort of gasoline powertrain be worth retooling a 100% EV supply chain and factory infrastructure for?”
From the people I know with Rivians, being solely an EV isn’t the only draw, it’s the entire package of powertrain, capability, and styling. None of them are “EV or nothing” types, and most have a gas car too. I’m positive Rivian could offer some kind of hybrid and it would sell well without hurting their brand image much if at all, but would it be worth diverting engineering and supply chain resources and infrastructure? That I’m not so sure about.
The only thing I can think of would be badge-engineering off some VW PHEV, perhaps the Q5? If they could spin that platform with Rivian styling, I can see that doing pretty well.
Yeah I agree with this take, though I worry a hasty badge-engineering job would very likely dilute the brand if they bungled it.
Even if they did pull it off, how financially beneficial would such an arrangement actually be for Rivian? They could find themselves in the same situation as Honda with the Prologue- A genuine hit, but most of the profit flowing to the OEM.
Seems like a questionable proposition, especially when we know it would take years to hit the market, and the landscape could change again. Pending a constitutional crisis, EV subsidies could very well be back in 4 years. Solid state batteries will be hitting the market at the same time, either doubling range, or cutting battery costs in half.
I think Columbia might have started out with just electric cars in 1899 before introducing ICE models a few years later, they survived until 1912/1913 when they went under with the rest of U.S. Motor.
Supposedly, Tesla originally considered a range extender for the Model 3 early in the development stages as a means of keeping the price down, but Musk concluded that it would undermine Tesla’s brand image as a producer of pure electrics and that battery costs were falling fast enough that they wouldn’t need it by the time the car was ready
If Rivian offered a gas range extender like the Scout will supposedly have, I would probably have one in my driveway right now.
I think it makes sense for Rivian to add a range extender and they might eventually come around to the idea. Given that range takes such a hit when towing, it just makes sense. They could even market it as their HD Towing Package.
I don’t think any EV company will go to straight ICE vehicle. But a PHEV with a much smaller (cheaper) battery is definitely a possibility.
Rivian and Lucid have really pushed the limits of range. That being said, I think pairing the Standard Rivian pack (270 miles) with a 150 mile gas generator would be more favorable to the market than the max pack (420 miles) even if the total mileage without a refuel is the same. The general consumer isn’t ready to take on range anxiety yet.
Companies that have been building cars for 80 years screw up engines all the time, I can only imagine how it would go for a young company to build their first engine while aggressively cutting costs at every possible step.
wouldn’t they just pick an engine out of a catalog?
It’s not just a matter of dropping in crate engines into a car already designed for gas. You need to integrate the motor as a range extender. That surely requires some engineering know-how.
Get a Horse!
https://www.horse.cars/
Renault and Geely are backing it and they have solutions and capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Powertrain
Rivian: “What can we do? Should we get VW on the phone?”
Later: “Great news, they’re shipping us 4,000 diesel powerplants! Bosch is going to help make sure they fit in our trucks! For free!”
Edit: Adding on to LionZoo’s comment, yes I think if Rivian could make some sort of optional EREV ICE engine that fits in the frunk, but I could no way see a pure EV company building a bespoke ICE powerplant themselves. It wouldn’t make much sense.
GM has some V8s they’d like to offload, too.
I wouldn’t trust them to do gas right unless they had a pretty experienced team hired away from a legacy automaker. One or two engineers isn’t enough – they would need a whole team for me to feel comfortable.
I say pen a deal with a company that has some ICEs sitting around. Developing one from scratch is not the move.
Just buying a motor isn’t enough – it needs to be integrated. If a legacy automaker can already do that, why wouldn’t I just buy a vehicle from them? I would trust them more to get it right.
I agree about not building from scratch, that would be crazy. But they can’t just buy a bunch of motors from someone, either.
That goes without saying. Integration is key.
What would be the play to convince the market that something like a Rivian R1 with a Toyota engine isn’t just a Tacoma with a much worse dealer network?
Because Lotus already proved that? 🙂
There are off the shelf solutions out there. Horse for example has anticipated this.
https://www.horse.cars/
Hmm, wasn’t there a thread just recently about McMaster-Carr . . . . do they have engines?
I was just thinking about this yesterday! It feels like it would be a logical and good move for Rivian to offer a range extender version of their vehicles. It may actually not be hard to achieve from an engineering perspective either. I’m just not sure if they can stomach the image hit of going from a pure EV company to a company that sell something that burns outdated gasoline.
I think the missing piece of the puzzle might be valuation; if they offer a range extender, does that make them seem like less of “the future” to retail investors? If management believes they will take a valuation hit, even if sales increase, it might dissuade them from doing so.
Well put!
Tis true that it’s probably not good ‘optics,’ but just like musicians can’t pay their rent with exposure bucks, struggling EV companies might not survive on goodwill alone, especially if the government leaves them twisting in the wind.