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 mean, isn’t VW doing just that with Scout? Take a Rivian, change the body a little, and throw in a range extender?
I think it’s less of a marketing and communications issue than it is the investment of developing and manufacturing an ICE powertrain. Their best chance would be to partner with another OEM to integrate one of their engines, like Lotus does with their cars.
The problem is not with the EV drivetrain, the problem is with Energy Storage and Delivery, aka battery and charging technology. It just isn’t there yet for the masses. Oil is too good of an energy carrier vs the competition.
America is addicted to cheap gasoline and in order to ween itself off it, something else needs to swoop in that makes much more economic sense. That’s the battle currently being waged in the Fossil Fuels war.
Come up with a technological solution that doesn’t sacrifice current acceptable metrics (cheap to buy, no range anxiety, relatively cheap to refuel) and watch consumers switch en-masse, “environmental hippy” aversions be damned.
I am sincerely hoping we can make the switch to Electricity, as the geo-political ramifications of Fossil Fuels acting as our primary Energy source is arguably one of the last chains of the pre-21st century holding humanity back from its true potential. Atomic-era 50s saw the light and yet we’ve somehow forgot what could be possible.
If I ever have to buy another vehicle, it will be a PHEV. But not on the scale of a Rivian or a Lucid. More RAV-4 or Prius sized. I’ve been a Honda owner for nearly 40 years, but if they don’t get their PHEV act together by the next time I’m in the market, I’ll happily buy a Toyota.
Fiat will start selling a hybrid version of the previously electric-only 500e in September because sales weren’t so hot. This was a car that wasn’t designed for an internal combustion engine, and also they’re offering it with a manual!
If Fiat can do it while overcoming the packaging difficulties of a small hatchback, I would think that it would be easier to do so with a large SUV.
Sadly I think it’s too late for the likes of Rivian to pivot to gas, hybrid, EREV, or whatever. As much as I would like to believe it could work, it’s not as simple as sourcing a power plant that fits and dropping it into their existing designs.
In the imaginary world where it could be done, I would sell it as an emergency range extender and power booster called “the Hunk”
Rivian R1, now with optional hunk in the frunk
One forgets that there’s an entire planet beyond the borders of this country where one can sell products not powered by fracked and refined Jurassic-juice to eager customers with money to spend living in EV-friendly jurisdictions.
It would be stupid and counter-productive for a corporation to regress simply because the government of the land under which they are originally formed is regressing.
If I were the CEO of Lucid or Rivian – I’d be sending staff around the world to lease storefronts for showrooms in strategically chosen cities around the planet right now – and would be looking long-term to relocate my business to someplace where the environment is more stable, less capricious, and closer to my new customers.
Along with the storefronts, how about a 3 year lease on an apartment to go along with the EV. I would be in for that.
3 years would put you 3/5 of the way towards Portuguese citizenship – all the while being eligible for EU healthcare.
Several major manufacturers already have plants there. That’s where I’d start my search for production facilities, as Portugal is quite business-friendly by making investments in tech and manufacturing as well as EV-friendly policies for consumers.
The only bad thing about Portugal I can see is that out of 138 international airports – Lisbon is ranked 138th, and Porto is ranked 132nd.
I’m not sure that would work out so well. The U.S. market is incredibly important, and other markets require you to compete with Chinese EVs, and that’s a tall order.
At this rate, in a couple years the line will be “the US Market used to be incredibly important”
This administration does not want EVs.
They do not want to participate in trade.
They do not want to support a middle class – much less an upwardly mobile, educated populous – which is the prime target market for EVs.
Free and fair elections in this country are not a given anymore
Higher interest rates due to greater credit risk and inflation – regardless of what the next Fed Chair says or does – are not unlikely.
It’s always smarter to diversify the markets one participates in by looking abroad rather than depending on one market based on historic trends.
If they use ICE, how many states would revoke their direct-sale license and make them sell through dealerships? (i.e. Colorado allows direct sales for makers that only sell EVs). So on top of the engineering side of things, they will need to go through the franchise licensing and building out a dealer network. I don’t see this as being a good trade off unless the company is fully committed to going hybrid for a very long time.
Depends how easy and cost-effective it is to source an engine from an existing manufacturer.
If you can buy off-the-shelf engines from a current T1 supplier of engines/engine R&D like VM Motori and other parts required for ICE operation, then it’s only a matter of creating a compelling enough car around that engine to continue selling your product.
The reality is that most manufacturers have their best suppliers tied down with contracts and because they order close to 100,000 components each year, you cannot compete with Toyota, Honda, and other high-volume manufacturers when you order the same parts costing 1.5x or 2x higher if you can even afford the MOQ.
The best MO for a new manufacturer trying to make ICE cars is to rebody existing platforms to make them more appealing. The F10 BMW 5 series looks nice but I actually prefer Vinfast’s efforts on rebodying with their so-called LUX A2.0. New manufacturers can do something similar. It’s really the only way because of the high barrier to entry.
Given the 3-5 year time-to-market for a new automobile, this seems like a risky proposition, unless something was already engineered, or the EV brand settles for a hasty re-badge.
-EV incentives in the USA (if they are truly slashed) could very well be re-instated in 4 years. (Pending constitutional crisis….)
-Solid state batteries will also be entering the automotive mass market as early as 2027. We’re talking double the range, or slashing battery pack cost & weight in half for the same capacity.
This may sound like vapourware, but looking back at the improvements from NiCad to lithium, (and even the improvements within lithium battery tech alone) we are on course for another generational jump in battery technology by the end of the decade. This WILL have a profound effect on the EV industry, likely tipping the market in EV’s favour regardless of the political climate.
Maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t see private industry embarking on this expensive transition without some expectation of the risks. The possible removal of EV incentives was a very predictable outcome.
Maybe if they could pivot it would move us closer to the universal 4 cylinder that torch suggested a long time ago.