The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[theman23]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Subjective. I like the 6 better than the 5. To me, the 5 looks like a boxy 1980s hatchback crossed with a CUV, and the 6 is much more sleek and aerodynamic, so...

I think thats exactly what the 5 is supposed to look like.

I was all for sleek and aerodynamic until I realized that a jelly bean was the most aerodynamic shape for a car.

[Truenorth00]

I like the Ford Explorer Electric released in Europe. Sadly, they won't bring it to North America.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ford is splitting its ICEV and BEV business. It's lost billions on EVs and is hoping to basically be half as profitable as Tesla is today...in 2026. And that's the second highest selling EV maker in the US. This is why I'm worried that legacy automakers are doing to struggle to survive. What happens when the ICEV business that they are relying on, to pay their debts and their transition costs, start seeing rapid revenue decline after 2025?

I think some of the opinions about the legacy carmakers being in trouble based upon the current situation is being exaggerated a little. A few of my thoughts/opinions to follow:

Sure, Tesla has been doing strictly EVs for a long time, and have taken many risks in advancing technology (with their early/mid efforts mainly being funded by selling US emissions credits so the traditional makers could still profit from large pickups). They (Musk and company) took a very risky gamble that someday EVs would become viable and kind of got lucky (if you can say this) that climate change and government regulations moved things in their favour. You could also imagine that they may have predicted that this would happen. They should be congratulated, as their gamble paid off, and I think they are pretty clearly the leaders in EV vehicles.

One thing that isn't clear to me is that, while developing superior EV technology, is if they also have designed for more severe environments, i.e. where corrosion is a problem. The legacy makers mostly dealt with that in the 1990s, after the Japanese were having major recalls related to corrosion, and thus improved their vehicles' corrosion resistance to the level that it is today, which is pretty good industry-wide, IMHO (the rest of the industry followed to some extent, to remain competitive). However, I have seen some things online like battery pack corrosion (Coastal Cities Affect Tesla Battery Packs | Gruber Motors) which makes me wonder how they are going to do, long term, in places with winter and salty roads (the Gruber case was from a car in San Diego). Maybe it will be fine, but I do know that legacy makers have been corrosion testing for decades (example: Volkswagen Corrosion Testing - How VW Protects Cars Against Rust), and have incorporated many countermeasures against corrosion into their vehicle builds over the years. I'm not sure that Tesla has that kind of experience, though I would imagine that they must have hired corrosion experts from legacy makers to advise them (or set up testing, etc.).

Additionally, legacy makers have been building hybrids and PEVs for some time now (not to mention hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in some cases), so I don't see the technology being out of their grasp... especially since ICE/hybrids are far more complex than a relatively simple BEV. Sure there will be costs involved in switching over and developing new technology to keep up with Tesla et al, but I don't see that as being a huge stumbling block as some seem to (battery supply issues will be a sticky point, but it appears that things are opening up in that matter - like recently in the US and Canada). If anything, once the transition is complete, it will be easier for the legacy makers to compete as they will no longer have to support the production of ICEs alongside BEVs.

The future will reveal all, but at this point I don't see it all doom and gloom for traditional automakers.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think some of the opinions about the legacy carmakers being in trouble based upon the current situation is being exaggerated a little.

The future will reveal all, but at this point I don't see it all doom and gloom for traditional automakers.

One can now spin the purchase of the F-150 as a 'green purchase'. It subsidizes Ford's electric vehicles. I might have to thank those truck drivers idling in the drive through. They're saving the planet. One F-150 at a time.

I mean, I have my bias against the Big 3 and am admittedly picking on Ford (Quality is Job 1!), where in actuality Quality varies from "Job 2" in certain eras to "Quality is Job 7, 8, or maybe not on the list at all" in others. Memories of the headgasket-blowing 3.8L V6 or low-mileage AX4N transmission turning itself into scrap aluminum come to mind in the 1990s. So, I approach the Big 3 automakers with more than a dose of trepidation for the hype they put out.

Now, given the scarce battery resources likely for the better part of the next decade as the industry scales, is it better to crank out Ford F-150s to subsidize a handful of ginormous Ford Lightnings, or is it net better to crank out many more Camry Hybrids and Plug-in Pruises over that time frame? Especially since those hybrids are sold at a profit?

Does 100,000 Lightnings excuse the 3/4 million F-150s that paid for them? Or is a half million hybrids/plug-in hybrids per year across a variety of models the better bet at this juncture and in the near future?

So, I am of the approach that exploring multiple avenues to solving the same problem is the best bet. It's not exciting, and one can easily throw media shade on the supposed insufficiently committed versus the flashy media spectacles. But competency was never sexy. It just gets results.

Mostly I come down to wanting a variety of choice so I can best find a vehicle that suits my needs and runs of gasoline minimally. Also, not having to be beholden to anything that enriches a certain billionaire egomaniac.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by theman23

I think thats exactly what the 5 is supposed to look like.

I was all for sleek and aerodynamic until I realized that a jelly bean was the most aerodynamic shape for a car.

Yeah, I'll still take jellybean over SUV wannabe...

Personal preference... but what really matters (to the companies) is what the public wants, so I usually get voted out in terms of what's available to buy.

Honestly, I hope that aerodynamic and efficient will be the way of the future for EVs. As we all know personal vehicles are still bad for the environment, EVs better than what they are replacing, but IMHO they should still move away from 9000 lb ego-boxes and into something that optimizes their efficiency through light weight and aerodynamic shapes. Then I'll be happy and finally shut up about it.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

...IMHO they should still move away from 9000 lb ego-boxes and into something that optimizes their efficiency through light weight and aerodynamic shapes...

Yes, seeing as how manufacturers are gradually changing from ICE to EV vehicles, it opens the door to explore designs and concepts outside of the traditional vehicles we're used to. I can't speak to Aptera's sustainability or feasibility, but ideas such as their three-wheel EV are (to me) quite interesting as a second vehicle for urban driving, especially as the kids move out and our needs change:

Aptera EV

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think some of the opinions about the legacy carmakers being in trouble based upon the current situation is being exaggerated a little.....The future will reveal all, but at this point I don't see it all doom and gloom for traditional automakers.

Before I rebut a few points, I'll just say that I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. I want these companies to survive, if not for the people they employ, then for the sake of competition as a consumer. But looking at their financials and the steep hill they have to climb, I am not at all certain most of them will survive. A year ago, I would have shared your optimism (and I posted on here to that effect). Now, I've seen a whole year go by and Tesla and BYD (mostly) are actually maintaining or even increasing their lead, just a few years out from EVs becoming cost competitive with purchase price on gas cars. I think a lot of big names will be toast by the end of this decade to the middle of the next.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sure, Tesla has been doing strictly EVs for a long time, and have taken many risks in advancing technology (with their early/mid efforts mainly being funded by selling US emissions credits so the traditional makers could still profit from large pickups). They (Musk and company) took a very risky gamble that someday EVs would become viable and kind of got lucky (if you can say this) that climate change and government regulations moved things in their favour. You could also imagine that they may have predicted that this would happen. They should be congratulated, as their gamble paid off, and I think they are pretty clearly the leaders in EV vehicles.

I know some lash out against the credits as a government prop up for Tesla. All I'll say is that this is how technology has always been developed and commercialized. Governments routinely invest in technologies they think are socially or economically beneficial. What we should be asking are why all those giant automakers rolling in billions of SUV profits and bailed out in 2008, never bothered to even start seriously experimenting beyond compliance cars? Instead a bunch of them even got together with the Trump administration to try and sue California out of its mandates. If it wasn't for the people who work at these companies, I'd be inclined to say that I hope they go bankrupt for this alone.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

One thing that isn't clear to me is that, while developing superior EV technology, is if they also have designed for more severe environments, i.e. where corrosion is a problem.

You're looking at this as a car guy. I assure you the vast majority of consumers, especially outside North America, just don't care. If it works and its cheap, they'll buy it. But also, fixing issues like corrosion is far easier for Tesla, than building competent EV software is for the legacy automakers.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Additionally, legacy makers have been building hybrids and PEVs for some time now (not to mention hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in some cases), so I don't see the technology being out of their grasp... especially since ICE/hybrids are far more complex than a relatively simple BEV.

The poster boy for hybrids, Toyota is proving you wrong right now. Their first EV is a commercial flop and the majority of it was built by BYD. They don't have the tech or the expertise. Or they would have done it in-house. They've now said they are going back to the drawing board to develop a proper EV platform. That won't be ready till 2027 at the earliest. In the meantime, the few EVs they do build will largely have to rely on platforms sourced from BYD and sold at a loss.

A huge problem for the legacy OEMs is that they all thought exactly what you thought. They thought it would be easy to build BEVs since it's just a propulsion change. Except that it's not. It's a computer on wheels. It's the equivalent of writing an operating system like Windows or OS X. Once you understand this, you'll start to understand why they are finding it so hard to compete. All the talent they have in building engines. All the supply chains for their power trains. All the engineering done to specifically tailor cars to an ICEV engine. All obsolete. A recent example I heard on a podcast was the example of the crossbeam behind the dash. In a Tesla (and with several new EV automakers), it's a simple extruded aluminum beam that is lighter, stronger and easily manufactured. For legacy OEMs it's a complex piece of engineering because they were worried about resonance from the engine in front. It's a small example, but just imagine how much of that kind of engineering is there in the parts inventory and supply chains of legacy OEMs. They literally have to re-learn how to build cars from the ground up in 5 years and scale that process across their entire business to survive.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sure there will be costs involved in switching over and developing new technology to keep up with Tesla et al, but I don't see that as being a huge stumbling block as some seem to (battery supply issues will be a sticky point, but it appears that things are opening up in that matter - like recently in the US and Canada).

I think Ford's revelations recently are really telling.. They are losing a whopping $22 000 per BEV. They have -40% margins and hope to turn that into +8% margins by the end of 2026. For comparison, Tesla today is over 20% margins and pledging to implement manufacturing techniques and technology changes that enable them to cut manufacturing cost by a quarter to a half. If Tesla accomplishes even half of what they are pledging to do, we're talking about Tesla getting iPhone like margins on $25k car that they are selling by the millions in 2030.

Other than Ford and VW (who were basically forced into transitioning by the emissions scandal), the rest of the industry is even further behind. The German automakers (excepting VW) got together with the Italian automakers to try and challenge the 2035 new ICEV ban by arguing for e-fuels recently. So the folks who think EVs are too expensive are arguing that we should keep using combustion cars and buy gas that has a production cost of US$1.42/L (aside from delivery, taxes and profit). The fundamental problem here is that these companies (a lot of regular folks) don't understand that EVs are a commercial inevitability. It's not about the environment. Who are they going to be selling gas cars to in 2035, when companies like Tesla will have $25k cars on the road for years at that point? A company that says they can't reach that deadline is basically saying they won't be in business in 2035.

Originally Posted by thewave46

Now, given the scarce battery resources likely for the better part of the next decade as the industry scales, is it better to crank out Ford F-150s to subsidize a handful of ginormous Ford Lightnings, or is it net better to crank out many more Camry Hybrids and Plug-in Pruises over that time frame? Especially since those hybrids are sold at a profit?

...

Mostly I come down to wanting a variety of choice so I can best find a vehicle that suits my needs and runs of gasoline minimally. Also, not having to be beholden to anything that enriches a certain billionaire egomaniac.

The problem here is that we don't get a vote as consumers. Tesla is going out and literally buying mines and refineries to build the supply chain they need. To some extent, the Chinese are doing this too, aided by a mercantilist government. But legacy OEMs lead by hoardes of MBAs who focus on managing rosters of suppliers (Tesla has something like a tenth of the suppliers as the legacies), don't think like this. And getting them to change their thinking is all but impossible.

At this point, I think we'll just need to start thinking about how to structure the inevitable bailouts they'll all need in 2030.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by thewave46

One can now spin the purchase of the F-150 as a 'green purchase'. It subsidizes Ford's electric vehicles. I might have to thank those truck drivers idling in the drive through. They're saving the planet. One F-150 at a time.

I mean, I have my bias against the Big 3 and am admittedly picking on Ford (Quality is Job 1!), where in actuality Quality varies from "Job 2" in certain eras to "Quality is Job 7, 8, or maybe not on the list at all" in others. Memories of the headgasket-blowing 3.8L V6 or low-mileage AX4N transmission turning itself into scrap aluminum come to mind in the 1990s. So, I approach the Big 3 automakers with more than a dose of trepidation for the hype they put out.

Now, given the scarce battery resources likely for the better part of the next decade as the industry scales, is it better to crank out Ford F-150s to subsidize a handful of ginormous Ford Lightnings, or is it net better to crank out many more Camry Hybrids and Plug-in Pruises over that time frame? Especially since those hybrids are sold at a profit?

Does 100,000 Lightnings excuse the 3/4 million F-150s that paid for them? Or is a half million hybrids/plug-in hybrids per year across a variety of models the better bet at this juncture and in the near future?

So, I am of the approach that exploring multiple avenues to solving the same problem is the best bet. It's not exciting, and one can easily throw media shade on the supposed insufficiently committed versus the flashy media spectacles. But competency was never sexy. It just gets results.

When discussing 'legacy automakers' I'm meaning all current 'old-school' automakers, like Toyota, Honda, VW, etc., not just the "big 3" (or is it the big 2? Is Stellantis part of the "big 3"?).

In terms of hybrids, when Toyota and Honda brought them here in the early 2000s, they lost money on every one of them, because the new technology cost more to produce per unit at the time than the public would be willing to pay. They ate the costs to get the technology out there (and they weren't forced to by any government, they really just wanted to produce more efficient vehicles). As the production numbers grew, and the technology amortized they were able to move them into the profitable column. I expect the same thing to happen with EVs... but it will be tricky for the legacies because they will still have to support the 'new' technology with sales of the currently-profitable models... hopefully that won't be F150s (and other large pickups), but presumably that's what it will take (for the big 2... errr 3... anyhow) in the meantime. Which means that they will have to keep factories going with current models, while moving around production to accommodate EV production in existing factories (or building new ones).

A thought that occurred to me is that it could be taken, if looked at in a purely business light, that governments are putting undue hardship upon existing ICE companies by forcing the transition in a tight timeframe (and the associated costs), but if it's necessary for the planet, then so be it, I suppose. It does have the potential to put people out of work if these large companies fail, which is never a popular place to be politically...

Well, one way to think of your rant is that at least electric motors won't have head gaskets to fail, like those old 3.8s. Heck it only took them like 10 years to finally fix the problem...

Originally Posted by thewave46

Mostly I come down to wanting a variety of choice so I can best find a vehicle that suits my needs and runs of gasoline minimally. Also, not having to be beholden to anything that enriches a certain billionaire egomaniac.

Bingo! Nailed it.

[Truenorth00]

Aside from the OEMs themselves, there's also the dealers. Ford tried to implement a Tesla like sales approach for their new EV division (Model E) with online ordering, no-haggle pricing and home delivery. A number of their dealers are rebelling and trying to get various states to pass legislation stopping these policies being implemented by legacy OEMs.

https://insideevs.com/news/658071/fo...ecide-opt-out/

[Truenorth00]

This is an example of how legacy automakers just can't think like Tesla and the new guys....

• Video Link

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Before I rebut a few points, I'll just say that I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. I want these companies to survive, if not for the people they employ, then for the sake of competition as a consumer.

Agree completely. We are on the same page with our hopes.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But looking at their financials and the steep hill they have to climb, I am not at all certain most of them will survive. A year ago, I would have shared your optimism (and I posted on here to that effect). Now, I've seen a whole year go by and Tesla and BYD (mostly) are actually maintaining or even increasing their lead, just a few years out from EVs becoming cost competitive with purchase price on gas cars. I think a lot of big names will be toast by the end of this decade to the middle of the next.

Perhaps? In terms of vehicle development and amortizing of R&D costs, a 'whole year' is just a drop in the bucket. As I mentioned in another post, hybrids were not profitable when they were first introduced to our market - companies knew they had to take a bath on costs in order to get the technology out there (especially Honda and Toyota, as they were the first). I've heard that the losses on some of the vehicles was in the range of $20K per unit, in year 2000 currency. That's not meant to equate the two situations, but just to state that this is nothing new to the "legacies".

Additionally, I'm not privy to each manufacturer's financial situation, or level of technical expertise, manufacturing flexibility, etc., but I also think it's important to not think of them as a monolith. Losses and development/manufacturing challenges will not be equally difficult to all companies.

I will agree that the timelines imposed by the government(s) is very tight, and will cause undue hardship to these companies. Definitely not saying that it's going to be easy. In that light, it also makes me think that there will be political pressure to provide financial assistance to the struggling companies, as losing large parts of home-grown industry and employment would be very unpopular politically (potentially political suicide, in a sense).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I know some lash out against the credits as a government prop up for Tesla. All I'll say is that this is how technology has always been developed and commercialized. Governments routinely invest in technologies they think are socially or economically beneficial.

I think that's a fair point, and to most it is obvious that this is what was happening. It was mostly pushed as a movement by the government to reduce overall emissions but clearly the 'side effect' of that action was to give Tesla (and other startups) an opportunity to create new technology with a business case that would have been 'bad' without the credits. Tesla was taking all the risks, though, and that's an important point that should not be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What we should be asking are why all those giant automakers rolling in billions of SUV profits and bailed out in 2008, never bothered to even start seriously experimenting beyond compliance cars? Instead a bunch of them even got together with the Trump administration to try and sue California out of its mandates. If it wasn't for the people who work at these companies, I'd be inclined to say that I hope they go bankrupt for this alone.

This is an important question that everybody should have been asking 20 years ago. The Trump/lawsuit thing is indicative of how inept the "big 3" were, and now they are paying for it... but I'd stop short of wanting them to go out of business, for reasons of employees, but others as well.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're looking at this as a car guy. I assure you the vast majority of consumers, especially outside North America, just don't care. If it works and its cheap, they'll buy it. But also, fixing issues like corrosion is far easier for Tesla, than building competent EV software is for the legacy automakers.

Well... yes and no. Most people don't know or care about whatever work goes on behind the scenes to make a quality product, but they do care when their 6 year old car, out of warranty, takes a crap and the costs to repair are higher than the value of the car. Nobody plans for their car to be junk prematurely (IMHO, the expected practical life of a vehicle is 12 - 15 years... I read that somewhere but can't recall where... so sorry, no source), and customers do remember a stressful hit to their wallet like this.

That said, there's no guarantee that this will happen with Tesla, but we'll see soon as their infiltration into the 'rust belt' is starting to come of age. Personally, I hope this doesn't happen, as I hate to see somebody take a bath on their car costs.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The poster boy for hybrids, Toyota is proving you wrong right now. Their first EV is a commercial flop and the majority of it was built by BYD. They don't have the tech or the expertise. Or they would have done it in-house. They've now said they are going back to the drawing board to develop a proper EV platform. That won't be ready till 2027 at the earliest. In the meantime, the few EVs they do build will largely have to rely on platforms sourced from BYD and sold at a loss.

I don't think this should be a surprise, though. A few makers have tried to rush the introduction of 'new' EVs by using companies that produce a poorer quality product. Knowing Toyota, their in-house development will be rock solid and well done. However, I agree that the tight timeline is a problem. I do think, however, that they are large enough to absorb some losses, and remember that North America is only a small percentage of their market.

Again, just my opinions.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A huge problem for the legacy OEMs is that they all thought exactly what you thought. They thought it would be easy to build BEVs since it's just a propulsion change. Except that it's not. It's a computer on wheels. It's the equivalent of writing an operating system like Windows or OS X. Once you understand this, you'll start to understand why they are finding it so hard to compete.

I can't comment on the software issue, it does sound like a formidable task, and is probably the reason that some companies have formed unlikely alliances to work this out. Again, it doesn't sound impossible, as the skills that were used to create complex drivetrain/vehicle management software is also useful in creating EV software. Sure, there's a timeline advantage, but I suspect this will soon just be industry standard, not something that they will never be able to figure out.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All the talent they have in building engines. All the supply chains for their power trains. All the engineering done to specifically tailor cars to an ICEV engine. All obsolete. A recent example I heard on a podcast was the example of the crossbeam behind the dash. In a Tesla (and with several new EV automakers), it's a simple extruded aluminum beam that is lighter, stronger and easily manufactured. For legacy OEMs it's a complex piece of engineering because they were worried about resonance from the engine in front. It's a small example, but just imagine how much of that kind of engineering is there in the parts inventory and supply chains of legacy OEMs. They literally have to re-learn how to build cars from the ground up in 5 years and scale that process across their entire business to survive.

I think this is being overplayed a little. Engineering is engineering, and EV platforms from the 'legacy' makers will be specifically engineered for this purpose. A crossbeam from an existing ICE vehicle will not be used for an EV vehicle, just like a crossbeam from a previous model will probably not be the same in the current or next generation. Plus, several OEMs have produced EVs in the past, so it's not like there is zero expertise on the subject. It's just engineering/development/testing/production - the same principles are involved regardless of the propulsion unit for the vehicle.

Another thing to consider is that there are already people who have worked for Tesla that are now working for 'legacy' makers, helping them in development. It has always been this way, and will continue.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Aside from the OEMs themselves, there's also the dealers. Ford tried to implement a Tesla like sales approach for their new EV division (Model E) with online ordering, no-haggle pricing and home delivery. A number of their dealers are rebelling and trying to get various states to pass legislation stopping these policies being implemented by legacy OEMs.

https://insideevs.com/news/658071/fo...ecide-opt-out/

I'm not sure the Tesla model is a slam dunk, though. It has worked for Tesla customers in the past, who typically pride themselves as early adopters, and want to experience everything as different from the past as possible.

I still think the large portion of the market wants to have the support of a dealership service department, and contact with a person to deal with.

I know it was a long time ago, but GM tried something similar with Saturn and it was a flop then.

Again, I think it's too early to predict the direction in which things will go.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure the Tesla model is a slam dunk, though. It has worked for Tesla customers in the past, who typically pride themselves as early adopters, and want to experience everything as different from the past as possible.

I still think the large portion of the market wants to have the support of a dealership service department, and contact with a person to deal with.

I know it was a long time ago, but GM tried something similar with Saturn and it was a flop then.

Again, I think it's too early to predict the direction in which things will go.

Oh man, this is the first time I've seen somebody actually defend the dealership model from a customer perspective. Everything about dealers (sales, service) feels slimy and you always feel like you're getting ripped off.

I have had a Tesla for 4.5 years and dealt with them through sales, warranty support, and out of warranty items. It has been great every time. I know some people have complained about wait times and other issues, but nothing out of the ordinary IMO.

I can book service through an app, pick my time, and they will message back if there are any concerns. They have mobile techs that will come to your home and work on the car. They prefer this if it's appropriate for the job. Tesla has the advantage of a limited number of models, but they also have a worldwide level of experience available to draw on.

I can email the Vancouver centre I normally go to and they reply quickly to emails.

The traditional dealer is a middleman trying to get their cut out of you.

My last car before the Tesla was a Toyota, my first new vehicle, owned for 11 years. I took it to the dealer for any issues, and it was still not a great experience. They would constantly be upselling things to me. I've never been upsold by Tesla, and they will often do minor things for free while the car is there.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure the Tesla model is a slam dunk, though. It has worked for Tesla customers in the past, who typically pride themselves as early adopters, and want to experience everything as different from the past as possible.

I still think the large portion of the market wants to have the support of a dealership service department, and contact with a person to deal with...

I'd tend to agree that both models have a place, and I think there are parallels with the mobile phone market where the major players have two or three tiers of service available. Looking at Telus, for example, Public, Koodo and Telus all offer comparable service on the same network but with different price points based on service and support levels. Some people are happy to do everything themselves while others don't mind paying more for the security and convenience of being able to go to a store for support. Likewise, with vehicles, there'll be people who prefer getting the lowest price they can with online dealers or brokers and using their preferred mechanic, while others are OK with paying a bit more if it means they have easy access to in-person service at a company dealer.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Oh man, this is the first time I've seen somebody actually defend the dealership model from a customer perspective. Everything about dealers (sales, service) feels slimy and you always feel like you're getting ripped off...

I don't know if it's so much "defending the dealership model" as it is recognizing that there is a consumer demand for both options. There'll always be people who are OK with paying more for what they perceive as comfort and peace of mind.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Agree completely. We are on the same page with our hopes.

I don't want anybody to get the idea that I'm cheering on the demise of these companies. But I do think not discussing these issues doesn't help anybody. The consequences of transition are profound. And if they aren't addressed, those consequences will be much worse and catch us all unprepared when they arrive.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Perhaps? In terms of vehicle development and amortizing of R&D costs, a 'whole year' is just a drop in the bucket.

Imagine, you're three years out from Henry Ford launching the Model T and you're still selling horse driven buggies and promising to develop an engine and production line to catch up to Ford. Still thinking a year isn't a big deal?

I want you to consider how fast Tesla is moving for comparison. First million cars they sold took 12 years. The second million took 18 months. The third million took 11 months. The fourth million took 7 months. Musk is saying Tesla will produce 20 million cars a year in 2030. Even if Tesla produces half of that, given that the auto market isn't actually growing, that alone could be the end of some legacy OEMs. But it's not just Tesla, the Chinese EV OEMs are eating their share outside North America and are just as aggressive as Tesla.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I will agree that the timelines imposed by the government(s) is very tight, and will cause undue hardship to these companies. Definitely not saying that it's going to be easy. In that light, it also makes me think that there will be political pressure to provide financial assistance to the struggling companies, as losing large parts of home-grown industry and employment would be very unpopular politically (potentially political suicide, in a sense).

I don't think you get it. It's not government timelines that are the problem. It's competitive pressure. From the EV only startups. In a decade, Tesla went from selling $90k Model S to $50k Model 3 while adding range, acceleration and automation, growing their charging network and their sales and service networks. They were running near broke to fund that growth and development. Imagine what a Tesla with 25% margins (and growing) will do over the next 10 years. This is what a lot of people don't understand. Between the pressure coming from Tesla and the Chinese OEMs, at this point, Western governments are trying to force a transition to save these companies from themselves. Imagine the consequences for Germany or Japan if their auto sectors fail because executives kept insisting EVs are some hippy nonsense fad. Imagine the consequences for the West of basically ceding most of the auto sector to China by not building EVs. I don't expect average auto fans to get this. But I do expect auto execs to know and understand this.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is an important question that everybody should have been asking 20 years ago. The Trump/lawsuit thing is indicative of how inept the "big 3" were, and now they are paying for it... but I'd stop short of wanting them to go out of business, for reasons of employees, but others as well.

My frustration is that they just don't get it. Ford and Renault do somewhat get it. They are the only two companies to completely segregate their EV businesses from the rest of the company. Ford even made sure that only one of the new executives in the Model E division came from the auto sector. They recognize that they need to build their EV businesses with a startup mindset. They can't default to how things have always been done and existing supply chains or they just won't be able to compete. The rest of the companies just don't get it.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't think this should be a surprise, though. A few makers have tried to rush the introduction of 'new' EVs by using companies that produce a poorer quality product. Knowing Toyota, their in-house development will be rock solid and well done. However, I agree that the tight timeline is a problem. I do think, however, that they are large enough to absorb some losses, and remember that North America is only a small percentage of their market.

North America and Asia (mostly China) are #2 and #3 for revenue for Toyota. And dare I say where most of the profits come from (particularly SUVs and pickups in North America). If these start declining, Toyota is the going to get into trouble really fast.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can't comment on the software issue, it does sound like a formidable task, and is probably the reason that some companies have formed unlikely alliances to work this out. Again, it doesn't sound impossible, as the skills that were used to create complex drivetrain/vehicle management software is also useful in creating EV software. Sure, there's a timeline advantage, but I suspect this will soon just be industry standard, not something that they will never be able to figure out.

I will say again. Understanding the change in focus from hardware to software is fundamental to understanding what the change from ICEV to BEVs means. Their challenges aren't really in putting a motor and battery in a car. It's in the software. And this is not a minor matter. It's akin to saying Nokia, Motorola and RIM know how to build phones so they should dominate smartphones. Where are they now? They couldn't survive the transition from buttons to touchscreens. It wasn't putting a touchscreen on the phone that was the problem. They even had some touchscreen phones before Apple and Google. It was the software challenges.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think this is being overplayed a little. Engineering is engineering, and EV platforms from the 'legacy' makers will be specifically engineered for this purpose. A crossbeam from an existing ICE vehicle will not be used for an EV vehicle, just like a crossbeam from a previous model will probably not be the same in the current or next generation. Plus, several OEMs have produced EVs in the past, so it's not like there is zero expertise on the subject. It's just engineering/development/testing/production - the same principles are involved regardless of the propulsion unit for the vehicle.

I think they are largely stuck trying to retrofit existing tech, processes and plants into manufacturing. This is largely why they'll take an existing crossbeam and stick it in an EV. Even where they know they should change, they are stuck. A good example of this is Tesla going from 12V electrical inside the car to 48V. Every auto engineer will tell you this is a good decision that should have been done decades ago. It saves a whole lot of copper wiring. It's why on the aviation side, commercial aviation loses 300VDC (my professional background). The legacies partially use higher voltages in their hybrids. So why hasn't the industry switched? Because the entire supply chain with everything from door locks to washer spray runs on 12V. Tesla basically said that whatever industry won't provide with 48V they will build themselves. This is an example of the kind of changes that the legacies just can't do because they they will never imagine building subcomponents in-house and their business model is based on squeezing suppliers, not engineering cost reduction as a whole. But since Tesla builds most of the car and sources out a much smaller portion, they are consistently looking at how to reduce cost of the whole car.

Another example... Tesla builds in an extra $1000 worth of computing power and sensors into every car they sell. Yet only 15% of buyers take up the $10k full self drive packages. So why do they do it? Because the reduced complexity in manufacturing is worthwhile to them. And they get the data from these sensors which keeps refining their AI models. Meanwhile the legacy OEMs will literally build different wiring harnesses for different trim levels of the same car to avoid giving away an extra $2 in wiring. And this is justified as boosting margins.

This is a long one (nearly 2 hrs) but if you're interested you can watch John McElroy (who used to be a Tesla and EV skeptic a few years ago) talk about all this with Sandy Munro (auto consultant who used to work at Ford). Most of these examples are from there. I will disagree with them on Toyota pivoting quickly. But otherwise, I mostly agree with this:

• Video Link

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Another thing to consider is that there are already people who have worked for Tesla that are now working for 'legacy' makers, helping them in development. It has always been this way, and will continue.

Will the legacy OEMs give these folks the freedom to structure their businesses, source components as they need and design what they want? Or will they tell them to design different harnesses for different trims and source components from the existing suppliers to preserve volume discounts?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure the Tesla model is a slam dunk, though. It has worked for Tesla customers in the past, who typically pride themselves as early adopters, and want to experience everything as different from the past as possible.

I still think the large portion of the market wants to have the support of a dealership service department, and contact with a person to deal with.

Disagree. Survey after survey shows the public hates car dealers. The model persists because there is no other choice. What you're mixing up here is the servicing support and sales. There's nothing that says they have to go together. And that's exactly what Tesla has done. It's put "sales" in high visibility and high traffic areas like malls. And put service in suburban industrial areas with cheap land and runs mobile service teams so they can even minimize that footprint. If you did not have to deal with an existing dealer network, that is exactly how most OEMs would build their sales and service models. And that's why they are all trying to gradually move in this direction. The only thing stopping legacy OEMs is the powerful political connections of most auto dealers.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I know it was a long time ago, but GM tried something similar with Saturn and it was a flop then.

Again, I think it's too early to predict the direction in which things will go.

I am going to argue that it's fundamental to the survival of the OEMs. Part of the reason Tesla has such fat margins is because they save $1-1.5k per car on dealer profits and another $300-500 per car on marketing (famously no marketing budget). This large profit margin makes it very easy for them to raise money on the stock market to expand. It's a compounding advantage. And it's a model that virtually every EV upstart is copying. Companies that don't do this are going to get run over by those who do.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I don't know if it's so much "defending the dealership model" as it is recognizing that there is a consumer demand for both options. There'll always be people who are OK with paying more for what they perceive as comfort and peace of mind.

That's all I was saying.

Sure, there will be people totally comfortable with doing everything online or with an app, etc., without ever talking to a human, but there is a large segment that will still want that contact and reassurance.

I tend to think that people relate to dealerships like they do to the government. They like to complain about them (especially online), always think they are wrong, always think they are being ripped off... but when something goes wrong they are glad to have them there. That's not to say the Tesla model is wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's not for everybody.

Reading the words of Tesla supporters online, I tend to expect a bit of a 'sell job' in the sense that everything about Tesla is great with little to no negative. I truly don't believe that they are being dishonest, but perhaps (?) are letting their enthusiasm cloud their opinion a little. JMHO.

I have no horse in the race. Just sitting back and seeing how it all works out... and of course I have my opinions (as does everybody here).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sure, there will be people totally comfortable with doing everything online or with an app, etc., without ever talking to a human, but there is a large segment that will still want that contact and reassurance.

I question how large this segment is and how much of it is generational. I doubt the proportion of Zoomers requiring an in-person experience is the same as their Boomer grandparents. And if you're designing a business model to cater to car buyers of the 2020s and beyond, presumably you'll skate to where the puck is going.

Also, people have this weird idea that you have to pick. You don't. You can actually go into their stores and order a car. To my knowledge, I don't think any of the EV OEMs require exclusive online ordering. The limit is that they don't have nearly as many stores as the legacy dealer networks. So it's simply the reality that for most people it's just easier to order online. The real change is that every car is custom built. There's no more large lots of inventory and buying the colour and trim that's on the lot.

FWIW, I suspect when BYD eventually starts selling consumer cars in North America, they will use a traditional dealer model (along with online ordering). Will be interesting to see what people pick then and if doing this helps BYD.

[SpongeG]

A Rivian buyer got his dream car after a 3-year wait. Days later, the car was dead and he faced a $2,100 bill.
Nora Naughton
Sat, March 25, 2023

Rivian's customer service disappointed one early adopter during a time of need.

Rivian has been struggling with a touch-and-go relationship with its early boosters.

"I'm just not the right person to be an early adopter," the Rivian owner said.

When Chase Merrill took his first ride in his new Rivian R1S, it was his favorite car that he had ever driven.

Merrill, 24, put down a deposit on an R1S three years ago at the urging of family members who also own Rivians. He was unsure about making the switch from his 2015 Ford Edge to a fully electric SUV, especially since he lives in a relatively remote area in the Adirondack Mountains, New York.

But once he got behind the wheel of the $85,626 car on March 10, those worries melted away.

"I was in a honeymoon phase," Merrill said in an interview with Insider. "It's an incredible car, and it handles unlike anything I've ever driven" — but the honeymoon didn't last long.

Two days later, Merrill drove his R1S to his family's shared property in the mountains. He wanted to put his rugged electric SUV to the test, so he drove it on the unplowed, snow-covered road into the property.

At first, the R1S sliced through the snow. Then, a large snowdrift stymied the car, he said.

"I hit about 2 ½-feet of snow and it just stopped right there," Merrill told Insider. "I had seen all the Rivian marketing campaigns with the cars just eating through the snow so it was kind of like, man this is disappointing."

Merrill said that he's dislodged cars from snowbanks before, and enlisted another vehicle to help pull him out. While he was sitting in the driver's seat, unbuckled, rocking the R1S out of the snowbank, he said that he accidentally triggered a safety feature that got the car stuck between the park and drive gears.

His Rivian was bricked, rendering it completely useless.

...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/rivian-buy...waTwtNi7hWhJ9I

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

...I think they are largely stuck trying to retrofit existing tech, processes and plants into manufacturing. This is largely why they'll take an existing crossbeam and stick it in an EV. Even where they know they should change, they are stuck....This is an example of the kind of changes that the legacies just can't do because they they will never imagine building subcomponents in-house and their business model is based on squeezing suppliers, not engineering cost reduction as a whole. But since Tesla builds most of the car and sources out a much smaller portion, they are consistently looking at how to reduce cost of the whole car.

Some of the issues the traditional manufacturers are going through with EVs are reminiscent of when North American auto makers had to adapt to building smaller vehicles in the 1970s and 80s, especially with the switch to front-wheel drive. GM, for one, invested heavily in their X-car front-drive platform only to have to deal with countless quality and engineering issues, such as rear brake lockup.