“Automakers are really now only turning to affordable vehicles, knowing they’ve got to or they will lose out to Chinese manufacturers.” That’s the quote of the day. Maybe the quote of the month. It’s from an ex-Aston Martin CEO, which makes it even more amusing. It’s true, though — at least for European, American, Korean, and Japanese automakers.
Hey, it’s another episode of The Morning Dump where we talk about China and how China, after years of exporting profits to non-Chinese automakers, is now exporting worries. Chinese automakers, however, are doing quite well, with a lot of new players coming into the space.
Back here in the U.S., Stellantis is going to start laying off workers, and it’s blaming California’s “Underground regulatory scheme,” which is really giving rejected-DC-Comics-subplot vibes. And, finally, American Honda is quietly doing a lot better.
Maybe Just Make The Cars Cheaper?
It’s easy for me sitting here, listening to The Last Dinner Party (band of 2024, listen now and trust me later), to tell automakers they need to cut the costs of EVs. I’m not having to guess the spot price for lithium, deal with increases in union wages, or account for any of the million things an automaker has to do in order to achieve cheaper vehicles.
It’s an easy job telling someone they have a tough job, but someone has to do it. Also, I’ve been telling people this for months and it’s nice to see them start to catch on.
To clarify: Automakers generally know this and have been working diligently to build new platforms, open new battery plants, and do the sort of long-term things that are necessary to bring the price of their electric cars down (while also allowing the price of their gas-powered cars to rise).
I’m not talking about the future. I’m talking about now. As in… now now.
I’m painting with an Oldsmobile-wide brush here, but automakers have generally followed the Tesla playbook and assumed there’s this big audience for expensive EVs that can then, to some extent, help underwrite the cheaper ones. That could have worked if Tesla hadn’t gotten there first and released a bunch of cheaper EVs and then, just to fuck with everyone more, continue to lower those prices in most places.
Ok, here’s the quote, from a Reuters report on pricey EVs:
“Automakers are really now only turning to affordable vehicles, knowing they’ve got to or they will lose out to Chinese manufacturers,” said Andy Palmer, chairman of UK startup Brill Power, which has developed hardware and software to boost EV battery management system performance.
That’s ex-Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer, FYI.
According to the report, Renault is looking to drop its costs 40% to find parity with gas models. This is way worse for Europe which, currently, has a more open-door policy when it comes to cheaper Chinese EVs.
The U.S. is a little more protected, but that’s only going to help for so long. From the same report linked above:
GM said it has saved billions partly by developing a more inexpensive battery pack with LFP batteries for its revamped Bolt EV, which will launch in 2025, two years earlier than planned.
Ford (F.N) said it will cut costs partly through a 50% increase in “in-sourcing” of parts like batteries and inverters.
Premium automakers want lower costs for EVs, too.
Michigan-based Our Next Energy (ONE) is developing an “Ares” battery pack with cheaper LFP technology that should give automakers the same electric driving range for half the price and a “Gemini” pack for customers including BMW (BMWG.DE) that offers extended range and should cost $75/kWh compared with an average today of $130/kWh, CEO Mujeeb Ijaz said
Two years is too far away. BOLT NOW. BOLT NOW! Start de-contenting these little shits. Squeeze those suppliers. Cheaper EVs now!
Chinese Price War Heats Up As Sales Grow
The Chinese economy may be on slightly shaky ground at the moment, but the car market continues to rebound in November with its fourth month of growth, up 25.5% year-over-year.
Automakers in China refer to both plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles as NEVs (new energy vehicles) and, according to the China Passenger Car Association, a record 40.1% of sales in November were NEVs.
Here’s something interesting, again from Reuters:
The association forecast that China’s passenger vehicle sales would hit 22.2 million in 2024, up 3% from this year, while growth could reach 5% if exports to Russia continue their robust rise.
BYD set another sales record in November, although there were only slight gains from October, and it is on course to become the first domestic automaker to hit 3 million vehicle sales annually.
EV upstarts including Li Auto (2015.HK), Xpeng (9868.HK) and Leapmotor (9863.HK) also achieved record deliveries in November. Huawei-backed EV brand Aito has shown rapid growth, delivering more than 10,000 of its revamped M7 cars for a second month in November.
That’s a lot of new brands. Tesla, it seems, is slightly more focused on margins and has slowly begun to raise prices in the country, but is still seeing increasing sales year-over-year.
CEO Elon Musk has said that in the future the largest automakers could be “Tesla and nine Chinese automakers” and that’s slightly hyperbolic as I think it would be more accurate to say “BYD, Tesla, and everyone else.”
Stellantis: “Blame Canad… California!”
Stellantis, the company that makes Jeep-brand vehicles, says it’s going to have to potentially lay off thousands of workers and cut back shifts at plants that make the Gladiator, Wrangler, and Grand Cherokee because of California.
Why California?
Here’s the company’s statement:
The California Framework Agreement was developed secretly with some competitors, in direct violation of the California Administrative Procedure Act. We are taking this action to relieve Stellantis of the competitive disadvantages arising from our continuing exclusion and to preserve our ability to best serve our customers by fairly allocating our products to all states. We strongly support emissions reduction to benefit the environment, evidenced by our Dare Forward strategic plan. However, our ability to achieve this vision is severely threatened by the current double standard, which also destabilizes our production schedules, the livelihoods of our 56,000 U.S. employees, and the thousands of spinoff jobs generated by our operations.
Uh, what?
This is a somewhat old story, because Stellantis already said it would stop sending gas-only vehicles to the 14 states, including California, that follow the state’s emissions guidelines. The catch here is that you can still order a vehicle, but the company isn’t just sending vehicles to dealerships.
Here’s a better explanation from The Detroit News:
The automaker takes issue with how CARB in 2019 and 2020 created separate, more flexible framework agreements with Ford, BMW AG, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Volkswagen AG for an alternative vehicle standard for model-year vehicles 2021-2026 concerning target carbon emissions, credit banking and reporting requirements. AB Volvo also later joined.
Stellantis says it was excluded from creating a similar agreement after wading into litigation concerning the revocation of CARB’s waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose more stringent vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. The board violated state law by failing to give public notice about the framework agreements and by not requiring they undergo public comment scrutiny, the automaker argued.
“Ultimately, when determining whether an OEM may enter a Framework Agreement, CARB has classified OEMs according to whether they publicly agreed with CARB during a good-faith dispute, and created a parallel, underground regulatory scheme to place OEMs that did not actively agree with CARB at a competitive disadvantage,” Stellantis’ lawyers wrote in the petition. “This classification is not relevant to California’s objectives of reducing (greenhouse gas) emissions in California; rather, it is based on protected First Amendment expression.
This gets into a lot of legal wrangling and who knows whether or not California followed the correct procedures, but I do have to point out that every other automaker listed either sells an EV, a lot of efficient hybrids, or both.
American Honda And Acura Doing Nah Bad
The pandemic was particularly hard on Acura/Honda, which had to deal with a lot of supply chain issues and doesn’t sell pickup trucks in large volumes.
Honda is a super popular brand, obviously, and the company managed to have a 12.2% market share before the pandemic started. The Japanese automaker isn’t quite there yet, but it’s been a lot closer than the 7.1% it hit in September of 2022.
S&P Global Mobility is the provider of both the graphic above and this data, so let’s go ahead and see what the analysts have to say for the why:
The automaker can thank several factors for its 2023 turnaround, but a more compelling product line should be at the top of the list. The Honda brand has successfully orchestrated a product revival of sorts. The CR-V, Civic, Accord, and HR-V have all received significant updates in the last two years, and Acura revived the Integra nameplate to replace the ILX with much social media fanfare. As a result, while the production lines are cranking back up, sales demand is still greater than the number of cars arriving on dealership lots.
New Integra is good. Very good.
The Big Question
What’s the magic number for EVs to be competitive with gas-powered counterparts? Complete parity or can an EV have a slight premium? Should it be cheaper?
Crocodile tears for Stellantis on how poorly they’ve managed Jeep.
They took a brand with one of the largest brand affinities and flushed it down the toilet.
The Cherokee is a boring platform with zero continuity to the much loved XJ.
They took the wrangler which was a fun cheapish adventure rig and cashed out the brand equity building bloated 4 door mall crawlers that most owners likely should have bought a minivan.
They took the GJC which built it’s market share on being a decent offroader that brought all of the creature comforts of a luxury vehicle for 20 grand less and they raised the prices so you have to pay 50 grand to get those same features.
They don’t have a low priced entry vehicle to build brand affinity.
They don’t have anything that can compete with a CRV or RAV 4 on a MPG and Size basis.
They are late to the party with the plug in hybrid
Basically they’ve completely missed every boat they could hop on thinking that selling 60k wrangler unlimited rubicons was going to be a viable long term solution.
Price parity would be nice but VALUE parity would be solid. So maybe offer a 1st time EV buyer program that offers a free (or significantly reduced) home charger install? That’s a significant hurdle for most homes. Dropping 30k+and then having to spend 2500 or more to install a home charger is a big ask.
A new charger would be a solid help on the cost justification, especially as it could be an increase to home value.
Value parity is a definite point. I bought my Pacifica PHEV as a CPO vehicle, and it came with a level 2 charger as part of the CPO package. Only a 32A, $600 Enel X one, but that’s still a $600 value there.
What gets me is the needless frippery that most EVs seem to consider necessary. Take, for example, the door poppers on the Mach E. Why were those necessary? Ford has a deep library of pre-existing, perfectly cromulent (and probably lighter, cheaper and simpler) door handle assemblies. Or the seemingly obligatory glass roof. It’s more weight, more load on the climate control system, and I can’t imagine it’s cheaper than a metal roof skin. Simplifying and adding lightness would be a good way to cut costs and make the car better.
I’m personally willing to pay a little more for an EV/PHEV but not as much more as is being asked at the moment. You can see the desperation to move metal by looking at the financing and incentives being offered. My local Ford dealer is advertising $3-5K discounts and 0%/48mos financing on the Mach E.
This is such a good point – re worthless doodads reinventing various wheels. Electric door handles-a solution to a problem absolutely no one was experiencing. Even the jumbo sized touchscreens, like let’s be honest for most stuff an ipad mini sized is more than adequate. I think it’s great that Tesla shook up the car industry but it’s sad to see the blatant copycatting that imo misses a lot of what made Tesla successful anyways.
Stellantis truly is the worst automaker in the world. The shittiest model portfolio, the shittiest quality and reliability, and the shittiest CEO. Impressive.
I hate to say it, but price parity is the only way EVs see widespread adoption.
The only successful mass market EVs in North America are the Tesla Model 3 and Y for two reasons:
1: The Tesla Supercharger network is the only system that comes anywhere near the practicality and user experience of gasoline distribution. This is basically critical, and no other charging network comes close.
2: The Model Y and 3 are actually decent value. The 3 isn’t just a popular EV, it’s a popular sedan in general. It compares well against the BMW 3 series on size, power and PRICE. There are tradeoffs of course, but compact executive sedan buyers can weigh their priorities and make a decision without cost as a major deciding factor.
That’s basically it. You can’t sell an inferior experience for a premium price to the majority of consumers, especially a product as important as an automobile. You can however, sell different *and* better for the same price.
So, with the Supercharger network opening up to most auto brands in the next few years, that is one major barrier solved. Now all they have to do is figure out how to build EVs that don’t cost 10-15k more than their equivalent stable mates. Good luck!
As of now, midsize sedans and crossovers are basically in the sweet spot for achieving price parity. Econoboxes are going to be a stretch without some drastic innovation.
I would pay a price premium for a Toecutter style EV, light efficient and most importantly, repairable.
Cani make a clear concise arguments here.
1. A theoretical ICE vehicle cost $40k
2. A theoretical EV vehicle costs $45k
3. A 10 year old ICE vehicle is worth $20k on a trade in.
4. A 10 year old EV vehicle is worth $15k on trade in.
5. The EV THAT MATCHES THE ICE VEHICLE ACTUALLY COSTS $10K more.
If I want to save money on fuel I am not shopping vehicles above $30,000.
And also add that you need:
Depends a bit on how much you drive on a daily basis. Just a basic L1 charger in a normal outlet gets you in the neighborhood of 45 miles a day, which is enough for a lot of people.
The thing is the price decreases are in direct conflict with expectations of a modern vehicle’s features. You could easily make an EV that’s legal to sell at $18,000. It’s just that it won’t have adjustable anything except the mirrors which you’ll have to push with your hands, no back seats (which will increase insurance costs), aftermarket LED sealed beam replacements, no interior lighting except the gauges, no rear defroster, a single windshield wiper, no insulation on the underside of the hood, fixed plastic rear windows, plastic everything, and reused parts from the models with the most surplus for their trim level, resulting in ever shifting changes from year to year.
And while this would’ve sold back in the ’90s (remember that we bought the Ford Festiva/Aspire and Hyundai Accent) due to both higher expectations from potential customers and the stigma regarding cost that new cars have, I doubt it would sell now.
If EV have less amount of expensive parts that break (like engine, transmission, $5000 catalytic converters…) it should be easier to make a $18000 EV
Here is road legal new 2023 Kia with power windows, mirrors…. New 2023 Kia Forte LXS for sale in Elmhurst, IL 60126: Sedan Details – 690050029 – Autotrader
Rear defroster is probably required, just like rear back up camera, for it to be road legal
I get you’re being hyperbolic, but we have had cheap cars for decades that weren’t as stripped down as you mention. Rear defroster, back seats, rear windows that open, all of those are standard in the most poverty spec of shitboxes, at least since the Berlin Wall fell.
Nice musical recommendation!
Well since an EV is a terrible inconvenience to charge, and not only on a trip but outside large cities in CA and even then more inconvenience than an ICE vehicle it should be cheaper. What a premium for inconvenience? As far as Chinese Slave Labor cars I think a tariff to make slave labor not any cheaper than a union shop to start. I also want to see an expert do a tear down and exam these vehicles. Because quite frankly last time I accidentally ordered a Chinese after market part it was several times lighter and crappies and undependable. I mean just holding it in your hand with the part you are replacing in the other hand was like night and day. So stolen designs, slave build quality using parts built with slave labor is in my opinion a recipe for crap cars.
“As far as Chinese Slave Labor cars I think a tariff to make slave labor not any cheaper than a union shop to start”
Aren’t you going to include American slave labor in your rant too?
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/1210564359/slavery-prison-forced-labor-movement
https://interrogatingjustice.org/prisons/explainer-the-prison-industrial-complex-and-modern-slavery/
Or is that too inconvenient?
“Because quite frankly last time I accidentally ordered a Chinese after market part it was several times lighter and crappies and undependable. I mean just holding it in your hand with the part you are replacing in the other hand was like night and day”
Sounds like a Lotus. You do know your car is in all likelihood already full of cheap Chinese parts right? OEMs have been sourced from China for decades.
As to stolen IP I can assure you from personal anecdotes American institutions also quite happily to rip off IP, mostly from startups then use the profits to litigate the inventors to death.
No as far as American prison labor I assert arresting, imprisoning and making the actors forfeit all assets for reparations and make them do slave labor. And I assure you my DD vehicle is old enough to not use Chinese junk originally and I return crap parts I received no matter where it says its from. And as far as stolen technology in the US the victim can sue and recover as a matter of fact anywhere in Europe can too. It is just Russia and China whose government sponsors and protects it you little Chinese troll.
“No as far as American prison labor I assert arresting, imprisoning and making the actors forfeit all assets for reparations and make them do slave labor.”
That’s exactly what the Chinese say about their slave labor!
“And I assure you my DD vehicle is old enough to not use Chinese junk originally”
If its that old your licence plate was certainly made by American slaves. Thank you 13th amendment!
“And as far as stolen technology in the US the victim can sue and recover as a matter of fact anywhere in Europe can too
Ha ha ha, joke’s on you. I guess you missed the part about “litigating to death”. The victims have nowhere near the financial resources to successfully sue and if they try to make their product they get sued. That’s the reality as described to me by a patent lawyer who sees this all the time.
“you little Chinese troll”
OK Boomer.
You are just making crap up. You think people read your propaganda and believe it. But as long as people point out your lies you lose. China had no trials and put millions in jail and those they didn’t murder they forced them to hard labor like Russia in the Gulags and Nazis in WWII. Now I am sure you believe the nazis were right in what they were doing but you are wrong. And my push to arrest and jail people committing crimes is different from imprisonment of people who disagree with me. You seem not to see a difference between committing a crime that holds everyone accountable versus the powers that be abusing the law as disagree with the proletariat.
This all derives from helicopter parents, socialists teachers and over protected children.
“You are just making crap up.”
Which part, the 13th amendment and its long, well documented history of enslavement:
https://innocenceproject.org/how-the-13th-amendment-kept-slavery-alive-perspectives-from-the-prison-where-slavery-never-ended/
or US companies benefiting from patent theft? If you’re accusing me of making up the latter, well I’ll just leave this here:
https://hbr.org/2022/08/big-tech-has-a-patent-violation-problem
So you don’t see stories where innocent people are released and given restitution where in Chiare murdered? murdered? In the US one person at time is tried in China it is millions at a time. In the US even poor people get a lawyer in China they don’t even get a trial. In the US torture is illegal in China it is required?
Oh we do that too:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/09/20-years-us-torture-and-counting
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/cia-torture-drawings.html
Good. THere are 0 shootings in China today. THere were at least 3 in Chicago because nobody enforces laws in Chicago. None of these murderers need any lawyers in Chicago because nobody is looking for them and they also do not get a trial.
It so much safer in China that women walk home alone after bar closes at 3am.
Maybe if they could buy a cheap car from China they would stop carjacking and kidnapping kids along with it in Chicago.
But they killed millions with Covid and they have complete control over their media.
“ Well since an EV is a terrible inconvenience to charge, and not only on a trip but outside large cities in CA and even then more inconvenience than an ICE vehicle it should be cheaper.”
Not a factual statement.
Actually that is a factual statement but it is also economically unfeasible that is why EVs are currently a waste
Plug in when you get home, have a full battery in the morning. Easy peasy.
A charger plug is not an insurmountable difficulty, for goodness’ sake. And with solar panels, the juice is free. Jeez, the Negative Nellies are getting bloody boring.
I think the magic number is a bit difficult. Cars are so expensive new right now but I suspect there’s gonna be a lot of concern about battery life on used EVs. Certified used will be interesting regarding EV and battery as that’s what so many brands in the US have decided is what they do for entry level rather than have basic cars.
For me, I’d have to seriously think about an EV with 200+ mile range that’s in the mid 20s (new) if it sat 4 comfortably.
I believe the Bolt is calling your name.
Is it? Think about the Bolt and loss of value it had because used battery life and no way to test. You get a really cheap Bolt. Well think now buying any EV knowing your EV priced at a premium over ICE knowing your trade in or resalevalue will be far less than that cheaper ICE car. It just isn’t a good idea to waste money on an EV knowing it costs more and will be worth less, or worthless. At least until your trade in matches the new price difference.
I have been saying this for a long time. There are people who will buy an electric car because they think it is cool, wave of the future, etc., there are people that will buy because they think it is eco-friendlier than it’s ICE options.
Once you get past that small subset of people (smaller still when you pare it down to people who want an EV and can afford one) you aren’t going to be selling too many more until you can reel in the vast majority of car buyers, people who want the most best car they can get for the money. Until EV is more competitively priced with ICE the mass adoption predicted doesn’t happen.
And considering how many people who buy used or boring appliances like Toyota Corollas and such that is a big market.I doubt we see the pendulum Chang in my lifetime.
“I doubt we see the pendulum Chang in my lifetime.”
When autocorrect has a Freudian slip…
What?
Oh did you MEAN to use “Chang”, instead of “change” as some kind of racist joke?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_(surname)
My mistake. You do you.
Nope just misspelling but see you accuse without asking just like your Chinese handlers?
I’m going to have to call BS on that one. You accidentally capitalized the C on “change” and left off the e?
Either autocorrect made the error or you did. Do you make a habit of capitalizing your misspellings?
My autocorrect capitolizes names automatically.
Could be either. Big fingers small keys. I usually let autocorrect do the capitalizing
I really just want a Brown EV Wagon with Manual Windows….
Hey if you’re crankin the windows that’s electricity you can use towards range! Not very much, but there’s an argument there somewhere…
Manual windows are probably lighter too, you might drop 1-2kg per car.
As long as we keep the R53s for the fun stuff right? Also I have to have at least one 1 ton pickup for my wife’s equine lawn ornaments.
But do you “need” the lawn ornaments?
If I want to stay married to the love of my life then yes. At least she’s now the one doing the overtime to pay for their feed so I can save some pennies to fix up the mini a little at a time.
Do they at least mow that lawn?
As they’ve stripped it to bare dirt, I’d say yes. I actually just sold my lawnmower since it hasn’t been used in two years because of them.
That’s good.
Now all that’s left is to figure out how to move equines around without a truck….
High End EV motorcycles are the same way. a Vespa Elettrica is the same price as a GTS300. the GTS300 can at least do 75mph the Elettrica can do 30mph. Dont get me started on the joke of a price that Harley debuted the Livewire with.
I’ve been seriously considering an electric motorcycle. As long as it isn’t freezing (like <20F) or snowing I typically commute and run errands on my adv bike. But my adv bike was $2.5k and can hold 100mph, but I can’t even find a real electric bike that can hit 70 mph (the road to work has an effective speed of like 70) for around 7k, which would be my limit (if someone says SONDORS apparently they’re effectively dead unfortunately and the product was suspect to begin with).
Zero makes some great electric bikes (I’ve test driven several at test drive events) but they certainly aren’t cheap. I mean not even close to price parity. However, they are fast (top speed like 125mph or something) and fun.
Zero is my top choice
As cheap as gas motorcycles are to runI can’t image EV TECH getting close to comparably priced all in.
EVs should definitely get/be cheaper. It’s only through decades of building gas engines that they are cheaper. To the point where we started getting fancy like the Wankel and Miller cycle engines. The parts/tooling/research for gas engine systems is so much greater than an EV, especially when adding all the emmissions controls/sensors.
Yes, batteries are expensive, especially since we don’t like China and they basically make them all, but once we scales up and we start getting recycling that should come down.
Consider that the common Lead Acid batteries are one of the most successfully recycled things that go into cars, if we can get to that point with EV batteries then even if folks are getting a new car every 3 years it can be somewhat sustainable as far as keeping costs down.
Also consider that EVs predate gas cars because they were simpler. And in fact if they were building EVs with NiMH like we had 20 years ago they’d probably be cheaper.
Look at the Corolla hybrid, it’s $1400 more than a regular Corolla, just $1400 and that adds the battery, motor and electronics. You can’t even upgrade some car stereos for $1400!
Just think of the ramifications of an EV battery recycling center that catches fire. There is no if just when. Make those tire and coal mine fires look like candles in the wind. Never knowing where to turn to when the dying begins. Due we blame the manufacturer or the recycling company or just higher insurance rates for every single person?
Both. Insurance companies charge higher rates and sue manufacturers and recycling companies to cover the losses and legal fees.
Profit!!
And then the manufacturers increase the costs and the recycling companies shut down so recycling stops and boom goes the dynamite higher cost no recycling.
Oh everything gets recycled eventually, even if you simply chuck it into the ocean.
> Make those tire and coal mine fires look like candles in the wind. Never knowing where to turn to when the dying begins.
That was pretty good.
> even if folks are getting a new car every 3 years
Off-topic: that is such a bizarre American tradition.
It really is! I’m a bit guilty myself of this, but if I had to do it again I’d have maybe 3-5 cars/trucks over my coming up on 35 year span, instead of the over a dozen.
Given the protectionism, I don’t think US manufacturers have to worry much about competition from China. What they have to worry about is US consumers just not being willing to pay the prices they are asking and the market shrinking.
In a weird way, this might be a good thing. There will probably be a whole lot more people opting for e-bikes and public transit.
Or we’ll end up back in the old days of crazy cash on the hood deals. Though I don’t see that covering the $10-30K delta that new vehicles have now piled on.
There was another recent article where China is making inroads to Mexico to build cars, which they could import to here and not have the tariffs, so they’re coming.
Yeah because the union protecting democrats and the business protecting Republicans won’t introduce new rules right? Really?
I think China’s lack of red tape(ironically) can move quicker than the lobbyists and CONgresspeople can counter for sure. We’ve delayed them but at some point they’ll get around whatever we have, even if they have to build a ‘plant’ on us soil(that they own quite a bit of).
I agree with you
Considering 90% of the population of the US does not have access reliable public transportation who do you think will opt for public transportation that isn’t already doing it?
If you build it they will come…
Or something like that.
Subways were not built along with the cities they serve, they were built well after those cities existed. There’s nothing stopping cities from building them now except NIMBYS and weak politics.
I see your point but there isn’t enough money or time or resources to build public transportation for 90% of the US. ABOUT 200 YEARS.
Also if you are afan of history every town had buses or mass transit system started and run by a private company. Government officials decided they could do better started public transportation shut down private sector and well ruined mass transit. Because governments don’t make business decisions they use tax dollars to screw some people and pay back other people and you get crap.
Really? So the Moscow metro opened in 1935 was privately built? By who, Stalin?
In 1935 Hitler was in agreement with Stalin to take over the world, before Hitler attacked Russia. Please clearly define your question and opinion before embarrassing yourself with stupid questions.
Wrong.
“German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, (August 23, 1939), nonaggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union that was concluded only a few days before the beginning of World War II and which divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact
In fact you’ve got it ass backwards:
“The Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance was a bilateral treaty between France and the Soviet Union with the aim of enveloping Nazi Germany in 1935 to reduce the threat from Central Europe.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance
This was very much an ANTI-German treaty:
“When the power of Nazi Germany became a threat, Litvinov (the Soviet diplomat and commissar of foreign affairs from 1930–39 urged the League of Nations to make plans for collective resistance against Germany (1934–38) and negotiated anti-German treaties with France (signed May 2, 1935) and Czechoslovakia (signed May 16, 1935)”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Maksim-Litvinov
A year later Germany and the Soviet Union were each supporting opposing sides in the Spanish Civil war which is hardly “in agreement to take over the world”.
None of which has anything to do with the fact the Moscow Metro was neither built nor run by a private company thus disproving you on that account too.
“What’s the magic number for EVs to be competitive with gas-powered counterparts?”
Well judging by the global sales of the Model Y, the Model Y has already hit that number… at least for the midsize CUV segment.
But then there is more general question… of making BEVs competitive in general with ICE vehicles.
The issue isn’t really price. It’s also the availabiltiy of the same number of body styles and trims that are currently available in ICE form.
For example… the exact number of electric minivans in North America remains at Zero.
“Complete parity or can an EV have a slight premium?”
People will pay a premium for a BEV because the operating costs are lower. Model Y sales should give the proof that anyone needs.
“For example… the exact number of electric minivans in North America remains at Zero.”
…PHEV Pacifica enters the chat.
That’s a plug-in hybrid, not a true BEV.
What do you think the EV in PHEV stands for?
People looking for cars to save on operating costs do not look at vehicles starting at $47000.
Sure they do. Just look at the diesels BMW and Mercedes sold up until recent years.
EVs will need to be cheaper to meet the timelines targeted, and the only way to do that is increased aggression from companies scaling up manufacturing. It isn’t a science, tech, or even really an unsolvable engineering problem. It’s a business one, and established businesses pivot extremely slow.
EVs are already a better business bet for new players, but they have to be more profitable for companies to switch in earnest. It is easy to do if the manufacturers were willing to invest at scale, but that is like trying to convince a toddler to let go of a shiny bottle of poison.
Yeah and it’s only really the US big 3 complaining and making the biggest stink, but they have always been poorly run businesses since the Japanese came in which started their downfall, because they refused to make small economical cars. Without trucks, more trucks, big suv’s, more trucks, and giant suv’s they would be out of business. The answer was not exp EV trucks and big exp EV suvs which is where they placed their bets. Honda/Toyota will be fine, Hyundai/Kia is doing well, the germans are in a good spot. Chrysler invented the minivan and the big 3 were doing well in that segment but mostly abandoned it for big suv’s, their pivot away from mid-size cars and compacts is coming back to haunt them, once you lose customers in a segment it’s hard to get them back. They reason why they are complaining so much is they want the govt to subsidize as much as possible to make up for their shitty business decisions.
The big 3 complained about seat belts, catalytic converters, unleaded gas and everything else under the sun. Maybe they should just build tractors.
Do they not? If one uses their massive pickup for actual work it’s effectively a tractor, and if one does not, doesn’t that make it user error rather than manufacturer failure?
Of course that assumes that you can still buy a new basic people mover, and I’m not sure that you can anymore.
GM invented leaded gas so their engines would have less warranty claims.
EV’s have two killer apps. The first is they do far less harm to the environment. That’s a very important one for a (sadly) minority of consumers. The second is that they can be built much, much more cheaply than the incredibly complex vehicles that require literally exploding a flammable liquid to work. We see this not with Teslas and E-Trons, but with the massive flood of cheap scooters and e-bikes now taking over the market. I can buy an e-bike now for about 500 bucks, when five years ago I’d be hard pressed to find one for three times that price. Cheap is a killer app that appeals to a far larger segment of the population. What will ensure the adoption of EV’s is when buying one is a clear financial advantage — when they are significantly cheaper to both purchase (which they are not yet) and run (which they already are). Tesla’s top-down strategy was novel and worked for a start-up that needed a funding model. But it’s gonna be the math that makes EV’s simply cheaper to buy and own than ICE that will guarantee their success long term. The Chinese already figured that out and are going gangbusters.
My 17 year old Matrix does less harm to the environment than an EV. It got built without special atomic elements that required either slave labor or resource intensive extraction methods. The carbon cost of the construction has long since been amortized. And if I treat it right, it’ll go for another 100k, and you would hope your EV doesn’t need a battery pack replacement or a motor swap.
Now if you compared new to new, you might have a point.
Want to respect a cow? Take care of your leather belt or leather shoes and keep them going as long as possible. The disposable economy is horrible for the environment.
So your Matrix runs on what exactly?
I want to piggyback off this and complain about refrigerators. Modern refrigerators break so often(sometimes less than 5y) that any efficiency gains are offset by the manufacturing emissions.
My friend still uses Panasonic plasma TV I bought in 2005. My aunt replaces TVs every 3-4 years
Plasma TVs are really power hungry.
The whole replace-every-three-years thing in Americans of a certain age is mind blowing.
Hey!
I’M “of a certain age”!!
:-p
(Besides I love those folks! They’re the ones giving away nice, gently used 3-4 yo TVs and other appliances on CL)
How modern? Mine is a 2006 and still working just fine.
Tough to know for sure, anecdotally my 2002 is still working but a 2013 had a compresser failure @4 years, and a 2017 lasted only 3 to the same issue both different brands.
By chance are the junky ’13 and ’17 built-in models?
No built ins, 13′ was an LG, 17′ was a Samsung, both French door full size.
Well mine’s a rebranded Whirlpool. I bought it on the advice of Consumer Reports and its worked great.
Coincidencidentally my current one is a Whirlpool and still working at 3 years. Crossing my fingers for at least that many more.
Good luck!!
All true about the disposable economy. But your 17-year-old Matrix is still gonna have a way, way worse environmental footprint than a 17-year-old EV. And talking about slave labor and resource intensive extraction methods while you literally burn a non-renewable energy source extracted at enormous damage with slave labor is bullshit — whatever horrors you hear about mining, oil extraction is just as bad if not worse. And you don’t exactly just use one tank of gas for the life of your car. So you are still adding to the problem long after an EV has “amortized” its construction costs, whatever that means. Each tank you pump adds to the problem. That doesn’t have to be true with an EV.
I live in a CARB state. I think my biggest problem with this is that a regulatory body in a state that I don’t live in and don’t get to vote in makes decisions that affect me.
Your state leaders, who you elect, choose to voluntarily follow CARB regs, so this simply isn’t the case.
Thank you, I was just about to write the same thing. If you *really* don’t like CARB, you can also start a recall petition for whoever elected leaders decided to adopt it.
Yeah, Americans love to confuse losing an argument with somehow not being allowed to make it. The first is what happens every day in a democracy — no one is entitled to have things always go their way in a system when everyone can weigh in. We all lose sometimes, but that’s the point. If you don’t like losing, make a better argument. If you want cars that pollute more, cause more health issues, and make the climate more unstable, go ahead and run for office on that platform. Convincing yourself that you are helpless just because you don’t always win doesn’t do anything except make you an easy mark for nasty men.
“If you don’t like losing, make a better argument.”
Or get your brainless minions to storm the Capitol.