America should rightfully be a leader when it comes to electric cars, having both created the underlying battery technology and proving the feasibility of mass vehicular electrification. China, though, has emerged as the real leader, and a mixture of corporate bumbling, political reality, and market forces seem ready to stunt America’s reemergence in the EV space.
Mass electrification will come, one day, but that day seems further away than ever. That’s not a critique of electric cars in general, as people who drive electric cars typically find them to be a better form of transportation (they usually are).
Am I feeling cynical this morning? Yes. You’ve been warned that the usual buoyant optimism that normally pervades The Morning Dump might be missing today. Maybe it’ll all work out, but I think America’s next best shot at getting ahead in the EV space is in trouble.
Of course, electric vehicle sales are up a bit, having climbed some in October. They’ll probably climb some more as people realize the money for EVs could dry up in the new administration. Will automakers still press forward? Sure, but both the carrot and the stick could disappear as a conservative judiciary might erase California’s ability to set its own environmental standards.
It doesn’t help that the first generation of EVs offered by most automakers has been tilted towards more expensive vehicles, a decision that is resulting in plant closures. I guess what I’m saying is: If you were inclined to buy an electric car you should probably do so now.
EV Sales Were Up A Little In October
For various reasons having to do with how automakers report sales, the only easy way to know for sure what everyone sold in the EV space on a model level is to look at registration data, which usually lag behind sales data.
The most recent month that there’s data for in the United States is October, which is before the election, and sales were up 5% year-over-year. That’s good, I suppose, but I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t a house of cards. Electrification in the United States is held up in no small part by subsidies and, further, by certain interpretations within those subsidies.
Looking at the data from S&P Global Mobility (via Automotive News) the clear trend is that most automakers are seeing increases, with Tesla seeing a predictable drop as it faces competition. Tesla still sold more cars than the next five automakers combined, but it’s a company going in the negative direction.
A close look at the specific models is most interesting here, with the Model Y (21,787) and Model 3 (17,419) far ahead, but the very good Hyundai Ioniq 5 sneaking into third place with 4,485 sales. This was followed by the Chevy Equinox EV (4,180), the Honda Prologue (4,168), and Tesla Cybertruck (4,041) rounding out the top six.
Is the Cybertruck a success? Certainly, at 4,041 sales it’s by far the most successful EV truck. There are signs that the expensive versions aren’t selling fast enough, though, which is backed up by used pricing data. VinFast, somewhat surprisingly, managed to outsell Lucid in October at 623 united to 488. The biggest loser here might be Volkswagen, which reportedly only moved 92 vehicles, which seems extremely low to me.
The lowest? Maserati had a whopping three EV sales. Just three. Presumably, those are all the Maserati Grecalo Foglore, though I’ve reached out to Maserati to confirm that.
What’s most worrying to me is that a ton of these sales rely on leasing, both because it’s probably not a bad idea to lease this generation of EVs, and because lease deals automatically qualify for a big tax credit due to an interpretation of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The chart above from S&P clearly demonstrates that leasing became the dominant mode because of the IRA. As the company wrote up in a recent analysis:
If this loophole is targeted for elimination, or if overall incentives are reduced, it could make BEVs even less accessible, especially as manufacturers may not have the same incentive to drive down prices or ramp up production.
Is that what’s going to happen? I tend to think that’s what is going to happen.
Trump Administration Reportedly Going To Eliminate The Carrot And The Stick
I don’t want to make every TMD about the Trump Administration’s plans for EVs, but it’s relevant. If this is triggering for you, I suggest moving on to another story.
As hamfisted as it could be at times, the Biden administration’s policy towards electrification had clear goals. In order to strengthen this country’s ability to produce competitive electric cars outside of one company (Tesla) and to help curb global climate change, there was money being passed around to build/buy EVs in the United States. That was the carrot. The stick was in the form of increased EPA standards that would make it more challenging to sell cars that weren’t electric cars.
Without getting into the details of how the United States Congress appropriates money, it’s not entirely clear how easy it will be for a Trump Administration to get rid of the popular EV tax credit. However, it might not be difficult for a new White House to reinterpret the lease rule in order to wipe out a lot of automakers that rely on those incentives.
One could argue that these subsidies are unfair and hide the reality that most people don’t want electric cars yet. Just about everything in life is subsidized, one way or another, so it’s merely a matter of society making choices. Did people vote for President Biden because they wanted more electric cars? Did people vote for President Trump because they wanted fewer electric cars?
The carrot going away isn’t a surprise, nor is the news that the new White House will attempt to roll back environmental standards. Ending subsidies for charging stations is the removal of a carrot that most people seem fine with, right? Maybe not. Here’s Reuters:
The transition team calls for clawing back whatever funds remain from Biden’s $7.5 billion plan to build charging stations and shifting the money to battery-minerals processing and the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.”
While batteries, minerals and other EV components are “critical to defense production,” electric vehicles “and charging stations are not,” the document says.The Defense Department in recent years has highlighted U.S. strategic vulnerabilities because of China’s dominance of the mining and refining of critical minerals, including graphite and lithium needed for batteries, and rare-earth metals used in both EV motors and military aircraft.
Can The California Air Resource Board Survive?
Speaking of sticks, California has long been able to shape automotive policy in this country by using a clause within the Clear Air Act that says states can establish more stringent standards with a waiver from the EPA. President Biden granted one of those waivers in 2022 and fuel producers sued.
So far, the fuel producers haven’t been able to get a lawsuit heard because they’ve lacked standing, but the Supreme Court now plans to hear the case and decide whether or not fuel producers can, indeed, sue.
Since 1977, other states have joined California in its standards, which means about 1/3rd of the population is under stricter standards. Right now California is hoping to get more waivers in front of the EPA approved even as the Trump Administration says it’ll rescind as many waivers as it can.
If the Supreme Court decides that the oil and gas groups do, in fact, have standing, then the case will be sent back to the D.C. Circuit to consider the substantive question of whether it is lawful for the federal government to grant waivers for California at all.
From there, the soon-to-be-Trump-controlled EPA could seek a settlement with the plaintiffs. Alternatively, the Trump administration could let the case run its course with an eye toward an appeal at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court if the lower court upholds the existing waiver system.
Even if the Supreme Court rules the groups don’t have standing, this is going to keep coming up until the courts decide if the CARB waiver system is constitutional.
Audi Closing Its Brussels Factory
The Audi Q8 e-tron is as good a poster child for the problems automakers have had with electrification as any other vehicle. Elon Musk once said that the future of carmakers is going to be Tesla and a few other Chinese companies, which is a future he does seem to actively trying to make happen.
He’s had help from companies like Audi, which have been pushing vehicles with high prices and relatively low range. A Q8 E-Tron starts at $75,000 in the United States and can’t crack 300 miles of range. It looks good and is probably nice (I haven’t driven it). Starting at $75,000, there are too many other electric cars that are also as expensive and deliver equally mid performance.
Why would you buy this and not, say, a Kia Ev9? Or a Rivian R1S? Or just about anything else?
Because of the poor performance of vehicles like the Q8, Audi announced that it’s going to close the plant in Brussels where it’s built.
From Reuters via Automotive News Europe:
“The decision to close the Brussels factory is painful. Personally, it was the toughest decision I have ever had to make in my professional career,” said Audi’s production boss Gerd Walker.
The plant closure had seemed likely after a spokesperson said in November that Audi had been unable to find a buyer for the struggling Brussels plant.
In theory, the new Q8 E-Tron will be built in Mexico, which should help lower prices if there aren’t any tariff shenanigans.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
When I’m feeling cynical I want to listen to sad bastard music. This means it’s a good week for Eels, though there’s something kinda hopeful about “Christmas is going to the dogs.”
The Big Question
Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?
Top shot: GM, Lightning effect: Brusheezy
Not sure if this was intentional to emphasize how nobody knows about this car, but if not, an epic crash-and-burn. It should be the Grecale Folgore.
Maserati Crackle Folgers.
I think it depends greatly on what “working out” means to you.
For those who hitched their wagons to ICE bans by 2035, it’s not going to work out and never was. The house of cards is collapsing. Some states may use the heavy hand of enforcement to stick to the bans in the face of consumer demand, but the smart ones will find a way to back out and save face. Every major OEM will offer fully gas powered vehicles for sale in 2035 and beyond.
For those who just wanted a level playing field, it’s looking like it’s going to work out better than the status quo. I don’t agree with modern Republicans on much, but this is one where they are right on the merits.
Every light duty vehicle in the US could be swapped to an EV tomorrow and the emissions savings would be a rounding error in the global sense. It’s nonsensical to restrict Americans’ freedom to buy the vehicles they want for such a limited benefit. I’m all for subsidizing battery research such that a vehicle that’s truly competitive on cost, range, and recharge time can be put on sale, but unless and until that happens I will be vehemently opposed to anything resembling a mandate.
Just curious: What about charging networks? Do you support pulling back funding for those?
I don’t support clawing back money already allocated, but I think a charging network ultimately needs to be able to stand on its own.
It seems like there should be no reason why it’s so difficult and expensive to get electricity (something that exists basically everywhere people travel or live) into cars.
I always thought the 2035 ICE bans were largely harmless nonsense that would never happen, but based on talking to people after the election I think they may have been more harmful than I realized. Even people who voted against Trump think the left has gone too far in some instances, and whether that’s true or not performative BS like this contributes to that perception.
Did the 2035 ICE bans win Trump the election? No. Did they help? My anecdotes suggest yes.
Agreed entirely.
As with so much else, the whole party is tarnished by its worst actors, but in this case it’s not Twitter personalities arguing for prison abolition or Latinx, but actual elected officials advocating for these bans.
You’ve brought this p before, but I still haven’t seen data that leads either way. Got a link, perchance?
Some math is required, but here you go.
The USA as a whole is ~13.5% of global CO2 emissions.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/
Of that 13.5%, 28% is transportation broadly.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
So about 3.75% of global emissions come from US transportation (0.28 * 0.135).
Of that 3.75%, 57% is from light vehicles, the rest is heavy trucking, planes, ships, and so on.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
So in all, 2.1% of global emissions come from US light duty vehicles (3.75 * 0.57).
But even shifting everything to EV doesn’t remove emissions entirely. Considering emissions from power generation to charge the car plus manufacturing the battery, EVs emit approximately 50% of the CO2 over their lifecycle vs ICEs.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
So the actual reduction from scrapping every one of the hundred of millions of light duty ICEs in the US and replacing with EVs overnight is on the order of 1% of global emissions.
That isn’t nothing, but I think it’s critically important to contextualize how small the potential gains from all these policies are even in their absolute best case. China is laughing at us arguing over minutiate while they continue to build new coal plants.
I should add that the *only* realistic solution apart from geoengineering is a carbon tax that attacks all areas simultaneously.
Billions of dollars are spent lobbying for and against policies that affect only the tiniest slice of the 13.5% US emissions total. It’s logical from those actors’ POV but foolish if the real goal is maximum emissions reductions in the fastest time.
Humans have incredible curiosity, ingenuity, and I believe a desire to do the right thing in regard to the well-being of their progeny. Humanity as a whole, however, has been a disaster to the biosphere since the industrial revolution, and has always had short term incentives to prioritize today’s gain over sustainability. The acceptance of disposable goods, and cultural powers that be, lying to the masses so they actually feel good about it, is ruinish.
VW ID.4 sales were extremely low in October most likely due to the stop sale of that vehicle that went into effect in September 2024. Don’t think it’s been lifted yet.
Cynical or pessimistic? Please confirm.
Are you being too cynical? My crystal ball is in the shop for its yearly polishing, so I’m not sure either. I do believe, however, that the new administration is not going to make electrification of the transportation industry in this country easier. Old dudes do NOT like change, and Trump isn’t exactly a spring chicken. All that being said, I did put in a deposit on a Scout Terra (with the range extender). So hopefully it works out for Scout.
No, you are not. If Elon had his way: there were only be the Dodgers, Marlins, Rockies, and White Sox; the Eagles, Browns, Titans, and Panthers.
The thumb will be on the scale so much there won’t be any more capacity for anything other than Tesla.
If you can see this picture, you’ll know which one is Elon, and which one is the US Government…
https://www.parents.com/thmb/dsB9YyZsEb6ipbdidFMH3pPXKtM=/750×0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/aaaaaa-9a029a57e5f84ac5a55b93708cb71bed.jpg
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/baby-crying-holding-on-her-moms-1455823364
Musk and Ramaswamy want to kill Rivian’s $6.6 billion DOE loan which is just like the one Tesla needed and received back in the day.
“Efficiency”? Or “Doing away with a competitor who actually knows how to build a truck”?
At this point it doesn’t matter. The fox is inside the hen house just sitting there eyeing the inventory.
Yeah, we just have to wait and watch what forms the corruption takes. Like fungi sprouting in a forgotten bag of wood mulch.
More like; we welcomed the Joker into the Commissioner’s office after telling Batman he was fired.
~Aristotle “We are what we do repeatedly. Separate him from law and justice and he is the worst.”
Paulo Coelho | “This too shall pass. It might pass like a kidney stone, but it will pass.”
Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?
If you are, than I am as well.
I don’t qualify for the tax credit on a purchase of an EV, and wouldn’t want to afford one without it. I was almost hooked by the Ford promo of buy/lease and get a charger installed at no additional cost. A lease of a Mach E wouldn’t be out of line for my finances, and getting ~$2,500 of freebies was something that caught my attention. Then the election results happened, and I shut that idea down.
I don’t know what’s actually going to happen with Trump’s second term, I’m not smart enough for that. However, I have to understand that the automotive landscape may change in a couple years at the end of a lease, and how would that effect replacing/buying out that car? Things could get significantly more expensive, and put me in a spot I don’t want to be. So now I’m just going to wait with my current car (which is far from needing replaced, luckily), and see what happens in another few years.
Things will work out. Better or worse, depends on your viewpoint, but generally things just are. As for EVs, I think we jumped the gun a little and aggressively developed both tech and a lifestyle that isn’t quite ready for mainstream yet. Progress was made, but I think we need to plan it all a little more before mandating all citizens must comply by 2030 or whenever. Maybe that gets delayed starting in January, but ultimately we’ll get there. It’d be nice when we do if battery tech is even better. I’m not so concerned about range as charge time.
Made about that same last point to a buddy recently. If we could get charge times down, I could be OK with 250-300 miles of highway range. That’s about what I have now (hooray thirsty engine with a tiny fuel tank..), and honestly I wouldn’t want much more than that in practice anyway. However, needing to stop for an hour every time I need to fuel/charge is the breaking point. Get that down to the 15-20 minute range through better batteries and/or smaller overall packs, and you’ve got something you can sell to the general public.
Agreed with charging time and will add charging availability to the mix. Normal drivers with normal sized bladders should take a break every 2-3 hours or 200-250 miles depending on interstate traffic speeds. Most longer range BEVs can handle this, at least in milder weather.
The sticking point for BEV adoption is no matter how often we need to stop, our preference in general is for enough flexibility to decide when, where, what to do, and how long to take our breaks. Any BEV taking longer than 15-20 minutes to find a charger, plug in, and get the average driver back on the road creates a compromise many non-early adopters who are frequent travelers aren’t willing to accept at this time.
I was going to write out something similar but I’ll just agree here.
EVs are still far too young, far too expensive, and too untested long term to be widely accepted and I’ve long stated that it was a mistake for manufacturers to go full in with ‘EV ALL THE THINGS’.
Now before everyone comes charging at me with pitchforks about how EV’s are reliable blah blah blah, sure they are within the first 10 years of life but what about 15, 20, and beyond? Because we currently only have roughly 10 years of real world data on EVs (first widely adopted EVs were somewhere around 2012-2014). What is battery degradation going to look like? What happens when a pack needs replacing? What happens when you need a module from a now defunct manufacturer (Fisker was first but it won’t be the last). There are just too many variables for me to be willing to put my $$ out there.
And all the above isn’t even factoring in the logistical hoops of owning one if you live in an apartment complex without a charger or the impracticalities of slow charge times.
The real answer is PHEV, people get the benefit of EV for most daily needs but also aren’t limited to their restrictive range. It also gives people a taste of EVs without the huge leap of faith.
No, it will not work out. The Orange asshole and his worshippers are hell bent on destroying everything about our “normal” way of life. We are fucked.
Username checks out.
If I just worship the people in power more things will get better.
We’re inevitably going to research this. Have an inquisition, as it were.
Nobody ever expects that …
I’ll bet you’re wishin’
That we would go away.
I’m guessing we’re all about to see quite a few things a lot of people didn’t expect.
Like maybe zero dollar leases on Hornets, or maybe buy a Ram at MSRP and get a free Hornet. Nicely loaded pickups that don’t cost $80,000… that sort of thing.
What an amazingly original comment.
“Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?”
No. This planet is toast.
But JD Vance wants you to have as many children as possible so that there’s plenty of fresh meat for the arena at Bartertown.
Heck, maybe Vance intends to eat them.
Vance knows who butters his bread. If the schools aren’t full of enough children to kill, the gun industry is in for a hard time.
No schools, no school shootings. The GOP solution.
Yeah. Win win, less of those pesky educated voters too. Can’t build your theocracy with them around.
It’ll be interesting to see how much can truly be rolled back in the next 2 years, when the political landscape in the US might change again. All of the EPA waivers and such go through processes that take quite a while, so it’s entirely possible that nothing will actually get done to completion before then.
Probably the biggest driver for EVs regardless of subsidies would be a large spike in gas prices, which could be caused by any number of things from cyber attacks to refinery fires, or hurricanes to middle east shenanigans. Add in the whimsical, illogical tastes of consumers, and all sorts of unexpected things could happen in any direction.
And I wouldn’t put it past musk to use his new position to do something like “borrow” some toys from the department of defense to destroy a bunch of oil infrastructure in a bid to increase sales and his personal wealth.
That assumes the EPA isn’t turned into a non-functional irreparably damaged husk.
At that point it will just take longer to get anything done, so the waivers are safe.
The “processes that take quite a while” can cease to exist.
Bingo, otherwise things can go through the court system, which are certainly known for speed
SCOTUS has managed to move mighty quick as of late when it comes to rolling back anything resembling progress. An emergency ruling reverting the EPA unconditional? Only Alito knows for sure!
Abortion: “Let the States Decide”
Clean Air: “Those Californians shouldn’t be allowed to breathe clean air – They need pollution and asthma like the rest of us!”
Pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy. The ivory fucking soap of hypocrisy.
I just hope a new factory in Brussels… sprouts.
I am once again asking for people to apologize to the Lucid Gravity for calling it too expensive
Just because the E-Tron is too expensive, doesn’t mean the Gravity isn’t as well.
I have and will continue to argue that the Air and Gravity are an unparalleled value in the EV space. There isn’t a single vehicle in the class of either car that can even touch the energy or packaging efficiency. The Air has the interior volume of an S-class in a car the size of an E-Class and an energy consumption lower than damn near every other EV on the market in the US, all while starting 5k less than an EQE.
Same goes for the Gravity, better than a Model X in every way and undercuts price, better than any German Luxury EV rival and cheaper too. Yes it is 95k starting now and 80k starting soon, but in the world of luxury cars, ICE or EV, for its interior volume and feature set, that’s actually a very reasonable price, heck a GLS 450 starts at 90k for an ICE, and 105 for the EV. The Gravity is not a cheap vehicle, but it is unfair to decry it as “too expensive” while it’s objectively a better value than every single vehicle it competes with.
Spot on. After watching many Lucid engineering videos, one realizes how almost all other EVs have poor engineering and are severely compromised products. These severely compromised EVs greatly contributed to the general public no longer aspiring to own an EV. Amazingly, the public falling out of love with EVs was mostly as a result word of mouth disappointment from EV consumer’s real world experience, as until recently most EVs received fawning press coverage. This fawning press coverage was a mistake, just as the government subsidies were a huge mistake. If EVs had been allowed to develop organically and subject to market forces, they would have been much better products and more successful, albeit at a slower adoption rate.
Yep exactly. I’ve spent some serious time in undergrad working on EV adjacent stuff with direct OEM tie-ins, and continuously spending time researching and understanding the EV design processes of companies (vague on purpose). It’s clear that Legacy Automakers are completely unequipped to change philosophies to account for the needs of EVs.
Traditional Vehicle design involved dozens of individual groups each being allotted a packaging space, to do with as desired. These all of course have tolerances and clearances, as to no conflict with other departments packages. It’s totally fine with ICE and Hybrid vehicles because there HAS to be an engine in that area, a brake booster in that one, and cooling systems in another. With an EV however, that methodology is inefficient and only hinders packaging.
Just look at something like the under-hood area of an i4 to see the problem. There was absolutely space for a sizable Frunk should it have been considered with packaging, but the old way of design is extremely inflexible. To change processes in an old automaker is extremely hard, and costly. Just look at VW giving up on their $12B CARIAD fiasco, they tried to do software the old way and the structure just did not work.
It’s stuff like that which is why I adore the work Savage Geese does, they look at the how of a product, not just the what, and let you draw your own conclusions.
I, too, have been a fan of the Savage Geese in depth videos. They’ve turned me into a Lucid fan (not an EV fan) based on Lucid’s engineering prowess. Lucid’s own videos are also great, especially the Peter Rawlinson tech talk on “Space Concept”. Pretty cool when a 6’7” engineer can sit behind a 6’6” engineer in the Air and they both have ample leg room. For those of you who haven’t watched it, the Lucid Air is the size of a Mercedes E Class but has a bit more interior room than a Mercedes S Class. The Air also has triple the trunk space of the S Class. Amazing when you consider that the S Class is a foot longer and has a 10 inch longer wheelbase than the Air.
If someone is buying a car based on if it has a frunk or not, we have reached peak car. The i4 is also a ICE vehicle. Relax.
Man, I love air and gravity. Literally two things I couldn’t live without. 🙂
I am with you. No one touches Lucid for range.
The US EV market will be fine. I remain skeptical that tax credits substantially impact EV sales (aside from extreme cases like the 500E lease written about over the weekend). I know several EV owners. None have said or implied the tax credit was a major factor in their decision to buy an EV. Several don’t even qualify for tax credits.
Most EV owners I have talked to chose an EV because they like driving them. They also like things like low running costs, minimal maintenance, the ability to fill up at home, and other benefits over ICE vehicles. It appears EVs are desirable enough to sell on their own merits. I suspect eliminating tax credits will eliminate an excuse people use to justify the EV purchase, but those who want an EV will find a different excuse.
Also, I have noticed that EVs that do not qualify for the tax credit always seem to have an MSRP that is a few thousand dollars cheaper than similar EVs that qualify for the credit. I presume this is entirely coincidental.
All for EV’s that stand on there own. Perhaps the free handouts will drive some innovation to make them both easier to live with and less expensive for the price of admission. While also making the concerns about longevity in the secondary market, and thus resale value be quelled.
Handouts for EVs: “Free handouts, boo! Let the free market decide!”
Handouts to the oil industry: “…”
eh, I call BS. if you want to compare then let the handouts be to the Electric companies.
Your canned retort just does not compare for the majority of people.
I think Elmer’s point is that government subsidizes industry. The oil and gas industry in particular has benefitted tremendously from government subsidies, tax breaks, etc., but they are obviously not the only ones. Just a convenient foil to the EV industry when discussing the issue. Some people get upset about EV incentives as if subsidizing EV commercialization is some sort of unprecedented overreach. When in reality, it’s government bread and butter.
I have always wondered how many non-competitive EVs were rushed to the market due to tax credits and zero emission vehicle mandates. I also wonder how many people saw these mediocre vehicles and rationally concluded EVs are inherently inferior to ICE vehicles and not worth considering.
Tax credits and mandates almost certainly increased the number of EVs on the roads, but I’m not sure that is a good thing for medium/long term EV adoption. Hopefully the subsidies got enough of the good ones on the road to compensate for the mediocre ones, though.
Probably the biggest thing that holds most back is the range concerns and availability of working charging stations.
Price of electricity per mile vs gas plays somewhat into this, but that is so all over the board, it does not matter much.
Price to get in even with the 7500 credits still made many of the available EV’s on the market more expensive than comparable ICE units, and I get it the credits were there at the start, but should not be extended indefinitely.
The product has to at some point be better enough to draw in and replace previous tech naturally. The result of too much propping up a slowly developing technology is ideological road blocks that have very little reasoning behind them. They just see the mandates as unfair and thus wrong no matter what.
Had they subsidized electricity to make charging so much cheaper than fuel, while also helping everyone, like Gasoline subsidies, then I think a lot of that roadblock thought process might have not occurred for so long.
“I have always wondered how many non-competitive EVs were rushed to the market due to tax credits and zero emission vehicle mandates. I also wonder how many people saw these mediocre vehicles and rationally concluded EVs are inherently inferior to ICE vehicles and not worth considering.”
Mediocre ICE vehicles have never been brought to market?
Plenty of mediocre ICE vehicles have been brought to the market. I’m not seeing how that is relevant here?
Mediocre EVs could have been brought to market for the same reasons as mediocre ICE vehicles, not because of tax credits and mandates.
That is a valid point.
Some currently offered EVs seem so mediocre I have a hard time seeing them being released without subsidies and mandates, though.
It could also be “Okay folks, we’ve obviously got a lot to learn. But we have to ship something. We have to start seeing revenue from this piece of crap and get on to the next iteration.”
But yeah, I admit expiring credits and other stuff could have put pressure on the timeline. But how often does an automaker hold back a mediocre vehicle to make it better?
Basically every single one apart from Lucid and Tesla IMO.
The Bolt was pretty good! I think the Ioniq 5, EV6, and maybe even the Mach-E are good as well. The Equniox EV was definitely not rushed. That being said, there are a ton of cars that don’t need to exist.
Would those vehicles have been sold without mandates though?
GM lost thousands of dollars on every Bolt and fire-sold (pun intended) the remaining stock at a huge loss after a series of destructive and costly recalls that tanked their reputation as an EV seller.
Ford lost $40,000 on every EV it sold in Q1.
I’m not aware of H/K’s financial situation vis a vis EVs, but can’t imagine they are turning a huge profit. If they are, great and I’ll add them to my list.
Lucid loses money but at least offers world-leading range for your trouble.
Whether you want to call most EVs “competitive” I guess depends on how you define the word. The vehicles themselves may be OK in some cases, but the fact they are on sale to begin with depends on mandates/standards. In their absence, they wouldn’t be competitive.
FTR, I purchased an EV SPECIFICALLY because of the tax credit.
Is there literally nothing about your car you like aside from the tax credit? Did you not consider any other factors when making your decision? I’m genuinely curious.
I find it impossible the only factor you considered when making that big of a purchase was the government offering you $7,500. EVs are expensive to buy compared to ICE vehicles even when the tax credit is factored in. It would be a bad decision to buy anything that expensive if your only goal was to get $7,500 in tax credits. That is like intentionally buying stock in a dying company to be able to deduct the losses on your tax return.
However, I can see where you would consider the tax credit in your decision making. I can also see where the tax credit might get you to consider an EV when you otherwise wouldn’t. I’m not saying the tax credit didn’t influence your decision at all, but for your sake I hope you had other reasons as well!
Yes, there were other reasons. But, it was the rebate that pushed me over the edge. In addition, a brand new battery in a 5 year old vehicle was too.
I am motivated to stop burning gas during my 66 mile daily commute. I am motivated to not have to maintain an ICE with it’s hundreds of wear items. I’ve maintained my own vehicles my whole life, completely. I never go to mechanics. I want to own a vehicle that is basically zero maintenance. And, after seeing how incredibly easy it is to swap out the major components that drive a Bolt, I realized that an EV is even easier to maintain than an ICE, once you get past the unsafe battery.j
FTR; to make a Chevy Bolt battery safe, and so you can work on the entirety of hte rest of the vehicle, it’s super duper easy. 1. Disconnect “normal” 12V battery. 2. Disconnect main fuse on main (big) battery. 3. Check voltage to make sure the main battery is disconnected. That’s it. Swap parts out as needed. No timing belt, no oil pump, no rings, no crank position sensor, no knock sensor, no starter buried under the intake manifold. SOOOO EASY. I can’t wait until something breaks.
I figured you had other reasons to buy your car. A lot of your reasons contributed to me buying an EV as well.
I’m very pro EV, even if I frequently complain about EV subsidies!
I’ll be curious to see what happens with vehicle pricing once/if the tax credit goes away. I’d love to buy an EV but I don’t qualify for the incentive. Do we think manufacturers will lower prices to balance the loss of the tax credit? Or will people actually keep buying cars that are suddenly 7500 more expensive?
I presume MSRPs will decline by a few thousand dollars to compensate. For a while, some Tesla Model 3s qualified for the tax credit while others didn’t. The ones that didn’t qualify had MSRPs that were a few thousand dollars lower than models that qualified, when you adjust for differences in range/performance. I presume some manufacturers will also offer incentives to compensate for the loss of the tax credit. Either way, these vehicles will not be $7,500 more expensive if the tax credit goes away. They also were never $7,500 cheaper for consumers because of the tax credit.
The tax credits had nothing to do with lowering EV prices. On paper they lowered prices for consumers, but in practice they subsidized manufacturing of these vehicles. For consumers, tax credits at best functioned as an excuse to buy at EV. At worst, tax credits artificially increased prices for those that did not qualify for the credits.
The tax credit was not a great policy, even if it was well intended.
Don’t forget the tariffs too.
If we screwed up in one place above all, it was marketing and supply chain. While many people in the 10 largest MSAs (and/or the CARB-allied states in general) were busy buying their 3rd or 4th EV, the majority of the US by landmass — in other words, many of the places where EVs made the most sense of all due to homeownership and mid-range commutes — were largely ignored and dealer stock was virtually nonexistent. Now I look around the sprawling suburbs of Birmingham and Teslas are everywhere, despite no showrooms and only a few superchargers since Day 1. Meanwhile, comparably priced ICE cars are everywhere. Rivians are seen several times a day now. More mainstream marques like Bolts and Cadillac and Hyundai EVs are everywhere. This is what it should have looked like 5-7 years ago in order to “spread the word,” but instead it’s largely requiring the used market to get these cars into the hands of people who benefit most (to say nothing of the notion that neighbors having EVs are the best way to break any stigma about range anxiety or politics). I saw a Vinfast the other day, local tags. A solid 1/3 of my neighbors have acquired EVs or PHEVs in the past 6-12 months. My parents are in the “EVs are a scam” group and are finalizing an id4 this month.
“Am I being too cynical?”
no
“Will it all work out?” it depends on whether or not a dumpster fire has to be upside down to be bad.
I’m a bit concerned going forward, the policies surrounding EVs did a lot to spur industry and job creation within the US. The large US automakers despite having traditionally been funded by ICE profits have large bets placed on an EV future. If EVs are not pursued there is risk of being left behind entirely. It would be easy for the legacies to keep pumping out more trucks and be fine but they won’t end up with any additional products.
I think, at the end of the day, if people can save money by buying an EV or PHEV, they’ll do it, regardless of how much the technology is villainized by Republicans. Japanese cars were also railed against by Conservatives in the 70’s, but all it took was an oil crisis for them to change their tune.
I’m more concerned about the impact on industry. It is easy to vilify the tax incentives as handouts to the rich, but the aim has always been to spur domestic investment in EV technology. The expensive EVs have been pushed because it was much easier for them to absorb the high initial development cost and material cost associated with EV production. You are already seeing EV investments paused or scrapped entirely and the ones who suffer will be the workers.
That’s why I bought an EV earlier this year. The goal was to take advantage of the tax credits while they were available. Best vehicle I’ve owned so far.
Ditto, bought this year, best vehicle I have ever owned.
My wife and I are looking into an EV for her to commute into work. Our biggest hesitation is that we really like our GTI, but that wouldn’t be the vehicle we’d retain. That would be the Pacifica that we still use for our annual road trips down to North Carolina and other places. The GTI just wouldn’t work for that.
perhaps get a Colorado address and get one of those Fiat 500e on lease for 0 dollars down and 0 dollars a month. you basically just pay taxes because of the Colorado incentives. The sales numbers they talk about next will have an abnormally skewed sales figure for Fiat if they include leases as sales.
I think government subsidies on $100k EVs are like the agricultural subsidies that rich people were using to buy Hummers. People buying Cybertruck Foundation Editions didn’t need the handout. When the government prints money, everything gets more expensive. So people are hurting just trying to feed their families so that another person can buy a six-figure Rivian.
People are hurting because corporations have jacked up the cost of everything and paid their workers the same amount simply because they can, not because some guy in Los Angeles got $5k off a Rivian. Give me a break.
It must be nice living in fantasy land where it’s all the evil corporation’s fault and not the $13 trillion in pandemic stimmies, QE, and infra giveaways that were magicked out of thin air since 2020 that caused inflation. I hear Argentina is looking for some new sources of inflation after losing most of their current supply, perhaps you could catch your break there?
What about the $7 trillion Trump added to the national debt?
Does that not count because he’s a Republican?
well it does not play into the NSX dude’s whoa is me mentality because of corporations.
Certainly I know from experience the companies that were able to keep or get new workers during the two major inflation years had to raise wages considerably. though now that the shareholders still want their 30% profitability(All of you BTW) those high paying wages seem to be the first on the block as the Keynesian cycle is on the down slope to reign in said inflation.
I’m appreciating the dichotomy of a “whoa” is me, Keanu style, instead of woe, combined with alluding to Keynesian Economics.
“Keanusian Economics” is just ” be excellent to each other”
Education time:
National debt and the inflation rate are not the same thing, and not necessarily correlated with each other. The connection is mostly a matter of Fed policy.
But to specifically answer your question no, it counts in much the same way as Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all count- they all in general kept inflation to below or near the desired 2.5% target. 2020 is a very clear outlier of a magnitude not seen since the early 1980s.
And yes, there was a pandemic, but the economic fallout of that pandemic is a matter of policy decisions, and policy decisions that spiked inflation were made. As a counter example, take Sweden, which famously (or infamously depending) made very different pandemic policy choices than most of the world and had negative to below 1% inflation in 2020, spiking in 2022-2023 not as a result of the ‘Rona but rather the war in Ukraine jacking European energy prices through the roof.
Rant about Trump all you want, but the indisputable fact is the policy decisions made over the past 4 years have produced an anomalously high inflation rate compared not just to 2016-2020, but really since the mid 1980s.
And nothing happened before 2020 that added to that, eh? Give me a break.
Nothing out of the ordinary since the 1980s, no. 2020 is a very clear inflection point, you get no breaks for being wrong.
Look at inflation all around the planet. Prices went up everywhere. Pretty hard to blame it on one specific government.
Well, since we are talking about inflation in the US it kind of makes sense to talk about the US governments policies. And also, as the US Federal Funds rate is the basis of comparison for essentially all financial products in all economies across the globe, it’s a very convenient shorthand for inflation in general. The general phenomenon observed in the US holds true elsewhere- the inflation rate of an individual country seems to strongly correlate with the rate and size of increased money supply as policied by that given state’s government.
ding ding
My guy, the subsidies are capped at 80K (MSRP). No Cybertrucks qualify, and only the base model Rivians can qualify; which who buys a base spec when you can ‘afford’ a 76k car in the first place
THIS.
If the industry were serious, they could 2+ decades ago be building sub-$25k sedans with good aerodynamics and sub-35 kWh batteries that get 200+ miles highway range, made with 1st world labor. Get rid of all the touchscreens, bells and whistles, and tech crap/spyware, then make the cars repairable with basic hand tools and commonly available diagnostic tools, make the battery packs easily accessed for repair/replacement, eliminate all proprietary software, and tell the stealership networks to fuck off and die already.
Make basic, functional, inexpensive, DIY-repair friendly, no-bullshit EVs. It will eliminate most of the complaints against them levied by their culture war opponents, complaints which are almost as applicable to modern ICE cars anyway.
No subsidies needed. Stop trying to screw working people out of their hard-earned money. Instead, offer them good value for that money. This is how Toyota and Honda took US marketshare in the 1970s and 1980s. With EVs, you could have a car literally last a human lifetime with minimal operating expense along the way, if properly maintained, and maybe 2-3 battery pack replacements along the way.
If the big-3, Japanese, Koreans, and ze Germans won’t do it, let the Chinese bring their offerings in without tariff, and good riddance to the rest.
Two decades ago would you have criticized the industry for “wasting time and money on that”?
2 decades ago, I was criticizing the industry for actively fighting adoption of the technology. Electric motors used for cars have only one moving part at most(some have zero), and there are greatly less failure points, and that is why there was so much foot dragging by the mainstream industry. It wasn’t until the industry figured out how to lock DIY-mechanics out of repairs that electric cars were offered onto the market.
It’s all about assuring a continued revenue stream from the car operator, to the stealership networks and manufacturers. I want to CUT THAT CRAP OUT and save people money, save resources, and save the environment, which matches the entire justification sold for transitioning to EV technology to begin with. That is totally at odds with profit maximization, and why every single one of them on the market in the USA today are unrepairable, expensive tech-hell abominations designed to end up as landfill fodder, totally negating their supposed purpose.
I don’t at all fault large percentages of consumers for rejecting them, and you probably won’t find a more staunch EV advocate on this site than myself.
stealerships are already setting the minimum charge to around 500 per visit regardless of whether they fix, or can fix the car, regardless of propulsion, but the prices of the items that can be fixed without a massively expensive single part seems to be relegated to ICE models mostly still. Certainly I think the extreme value loss on something as simple as a couple dead cells or a buried master fuse inside of a battery case will eventually lead to some crafty nerdy types to become EV appliance repairmen, or used car dealers with a field full of partially stripped units out back waiting to be used to make one good car out of 2 or 3.
Sandy Munro has put a lot of work in figuring out processes regarding repair. But because of the way the vehicles are designed, it’s labor intensive and difficult, regardless. They’re no getting fixed without $1XX,XXX+ in tools plus ample shop space. Joe Redneck living in the trailerpark of the future is not fixing his 20 year old Silverado EV in the back yard with his Harbor Freight tools in time to get to his job on Monday, even if he happens to be a 180+ IQ mechanical savant(which he’s probably not).
That’s a problem.
If an electric drive system is more complicated and difficult to work on than that of a cheap golf cart or a hobbyist-built ebike, then the car is designed incorrectly. EVs are inherently simple. That scares the crap out of people within the industry that feel entitled to everyone else’s money, who have made their EV offerings overly complicated needlessly and on purpose, so egregiously so that many of their offerings don’t even work right off the dealer lot(eg. Audi ETron, Dodge Charger Daytona EV).
It’s actually insane how overly complex modern cars have become, EV or not. In udnergrad did a very involved design project with a only-recently out of production vehicle and goodness, the number of modules, interconnects, and wires running around the cabin was insane. It’s intentionally obfuscated via CANBUS protocol to be a nightmare to interpreted without the right tools, the repair guides by the OEM itself were a mess of backtracking and pointless cross-referencing, and this was on a sub-50k vehicle.
It’s crap like this which is why I like the push Rivian is making to their zonal architecture. Sure it’s not a complete dumbing down, but it’s simplifying everything with no functionality detriment. Fewer failure points, less wiring, and in theory greater reliability, all while reducing cost and complexity. If the legacy automakers took note of this, you’d see cheaper EVs on the road already. We don’t need 12 BCMs, 3 TCMs, and 5 CANBUS Hubs in a vehicle, we just don’t.
the rear drive unit on the Model S Tesla is perhaps the example I would lead with. by design it is much more difficult to detect and also repair cooling system faults in the unit. as a result it is almost always too late once the fault is identified and because the coolant gets into the motors and gear lube in the system, it almost always leads to a 2-4K bill for the parts if available used, and like toe said they are not wanting just anyone to do the swap so even though it is relatively straight forward. the system does not like to recognize the replacement parts so you are sunk. Often what happens in my experience is if you repair it yourself, Tesla locks you out of High Speed charging, regardless of whether the battery was even touched.
Doesn’t shock me in the slightest, Tesla is particularly bad for locking out any third parties regardless of whats done to the cars. One one hand I absolutely recognize the safety argument to be made with high voltage systems that can output extremely lethal power, but to intentionally sabotage 3rd party repair tools and parts is diabolical.
What vehicle has 12 body control modules, 3 transmission control modules, and 5 CAN hubs?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any EVs that come from primarily Chines-state owned companies to be devoid of spyware, or be easy to DIY with a complete lack of knowledge or parts infrastructure in the US. That said I’m VERY curious to see how Chinese EVs would do on EPA range certification testing because most of the media just regurgitates CLTC numbers which are hilariously optimistic even against the European testing cycle, which alone is known to be optimistic. I do strongly believe that tariffs on dirt cheap Chinese EVs are necessary, not to protect domestic automakers, but to account for the aggressive subsidization of the Chinese EV market, and to account for the poor conditions and pay of laborers building it. There’s also the arguments of IP theft to be made, but it seems like much of the Chinese EV industry has moved beyond that and genuinely has good technology built on it’s own merits and IP.
I don’t either. I only proposed that as the alternative if the mainstream manufacturers refuse to get their shit together and throw their greed aside.
They want to cite “free market” as the excuse? Give them “free market” then… Stop the damned hypocrisy and stop trying to nickel and dime people to death.
Ahh gotcha, I completely misunderstood what you were saying there, that’s my bad. In that case yeah, throw them to the wolves and let the the established automakers transition from the “F*** around” phase to the “Find Out” phase. They certainly are overdue, especially the Big-3. you’d think they would have learned when Tesla came in, instead they learned nothing, and now tesla is overdue for a rude awakening that the like of Rivian is starting to give them.
While I’ve certainly disagreed with some of your thoughts on the “how” of cheap EVs in the past, I absolutely agree with the need for them on the market. If the incoming administration truly is going to throw away regulations and incentives, I can only hope that automakers will respond with cheaper EVs that are more reasonable. If GM can make a next-gen Bolt with 300+ miles of range for the same 32k as the old one or less, they’ll sell like crazy. That or a 220-250mi range 25k version. EV sales are showing that consumers are plenty happy to buy an EV if the price makes sense.
I think the nickel and diming issue can be laid squarely at the feet of the Harvard School of Business, who started teaching decades ago that the only real purpose of a publicly traded company is to enrich the share holders.
Ol’ Henry had his flaws, but at least he understood there was value in providing a solid, reasonably priced vehicle to the masses.
Now it’s all about how much money they can suck out of people’s wallets, aided and abetted by their frenemies at NADA and their lobby.
I’d like to think Ol’ Henry would have punched a few MBA-types in the face somewhere along the way, but maybe that’s giving the guy too much credit.
Hey now, if we are going to rail against evil-yet-lame MBA factories, we can’t leave out Booth!
No it won’t. The conservatives rail against them because they’re in the pocket of oil companies – it’s really that simple. It doesn’t matter how cheap these cars are or how easy they are to repair. Conservatives will just make up some lie.
I can assure you that Bubba redneck living off of the proceeds from his trailerpark meth lab and/or food stamps is not in the pocket of the oil companies. Most conservatives aren’t, even if they may be overrepresented among blue collar oil field workers.
The conservatives in congress, as well as California “liberal” politicians, OTOH…
Obviously, but Bubba redneck and the extremely large contingent of well-educated and middle to upper-class Republicans cling on to every single word of Fox News and the unstoppable Conservative media juggernaut. If they say EV’s are bad, then they themselves will continue to believe they’re bad.
Two decades ago… so 2004? Six years after they killed the EV1? Yea, they could have done what you’re suggesting.
The whole issue with “simple car with good range and no crap for cheap” is that people do not want “simple car with good range and no crap for cheap”. They want “crazy complex car with all the widgets and luxuries and long range and fast and cheap” which will not happen. So the car companies make the complex/expensive thing and people take out 84 month loans to drive them around.
Go anywhere online and ask what “unnecessary bells and whistles” means and you’ll see people can’t imagine buying a new car without backup cameras and touch screens and adaptive cruise and lane departure and 27 way power seats everywhere and dual sunroofs and anti-lock cupholders and direct port retractable door handles. All that crap is just expected now, while at the same time being bemoaned because it’s crap that breaks and costs money.
You can’t win.
There is no federal tax credit on a $100,000 EV.
To wit:
“In addition, the vehicle’s manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) can’t exceed:
$55,000 for other vehicles”
I disagree, everyone has signed up to adopt NACS (the Tesla charging standard), and due to how modern BEVs are reliant on a software handshake in order to charge, and general attitudes when it comes to planned obsolescence, software support, right to repair, etc. I wouldn’t buy ANY new BEV without NACS.
My ass, not inviting Tesla to the event on BEVs at the White House and this jewel of a quote from Biden referring to Marry Barra
Detroit doesn’t lead the world in shit except for shit, especially not BEVs. If anything Silicon Valley does because Tesla started there and still makes most of their vehicles there.
Musk wasn’t invited because Tesla isn’t a union shop.
Why does the world’s richest man need to be invited? Is he looking for more welfare?
Detroit would lead the world in shit EVs, except VAG have them beat.
True for PHEVs too. We’re probably leasing a Mazda CX-90 PHEV. Mazda’s got over $10K on the hood for leases, at least here in the Chicago area.
Wild! It’s the same story in Denver too. I’m thinking about it but the CX-90 is kind of too big for my garage! If they had made an actual CX-70 and not a rebadged one (i.e. one smaller than the 90 but bigger than the 50) I’d be all over it. Maybe I just have to street park it!
I just built one on their website and its quoting a $440/mo payment. That’s a great deal. Very tempting.
Most automaker’s lease quotes are pretty far off (including Mazda), it’s best to check with a dealer
“Why don’t you come on in and we’ll take a look at some numbers”
That figure is with giving them nearly $5k to start and only 10k miles a year too, which is realistically like 5k more than we need. Either way I’m just daydreaming here.
I would love to hear more about it. I love the CX90 on paper and think it’s a very attractive car. It’s also a unique offering in a class of car that’s about as exciting as watching paint dry. That being said, the massive amount of issues with the first model year kind of turned me off.
There were recalls galore, transmission issues, bugs out the wazoo…I’ve peeped the forums and many if not post people are not happy with their purchase. The general consensus seems to be that the straight 6 is the better choice right now. The biggest issue with the PHEV seems to be the transmission being too jerky and unrefined at low speed and in EV mode.
How has it been for you? My wife and I will be looking in this class in the next year or two and the CX90 is on our list….but my wife is decidedly NOT a car person and wants something that will stay out of her way, so I’m a little weary after reading about all the issues they’re having.
I, for one, am very excited to get to see the Cuyahoga River catch on fire again in just a few years time.
That assumes we still have rivers. I’m thinking it’s hog lagoons and leaching ponds that occasionally run into lowlands every time we get that year’s what-would-have-been-storm-of-the-century.
It’ll be the jet stream catching on fire, ignited by the Appalachians going up in a giant wildfire.
It would be rather funny if climate change fucks over one of the states that’s been an epicenter of MAGA. That’s firmly in the “fuck around and find out” category for me.
*Flerda has entered the chat
It already caught on fire again in August of 2020…