Rapid swings between pro-EV and anti-EV US policies have disrupted long-term planning, forcing Ford, GM, and Stellantis to scramble to reshape their strategy
And thus, American carmakers, determined to remain metaphorical dinosaurs burning physical dinosaurs, will be left in the dust when other imports fully disrupt the market. If there were a smart...
And thus, American carmakers, determined to remain metaphorical dinosaurs burning physical dinosaurs, will be left in the dust when other imports fully disrupt the market.
If there were a smart CEO not chasing shareholder profits, they'd be working to phase out gasoline entirely regardless of current government bailout plans.
I don’t think it’s that simple. All the carmakers did try their hands at EVs, and they’re all insanely in the red, completely propped up by their ICE suv sales. Ford lost $5b from their EV...
I don’t think it’s that simple. All the carmakers did try their hands at EVs, and they’re all insanely in the red, completely propped up by their ICE suv sales.
Ford lost $5b from their EV division in 2024. Their net income is $5.9b.
This is not “CEO chasing a mild quarterly bump”, this is “this is losing an existential amount of money”.
Of course, it’s simple to say that Ford should simply learn to make EVs better and more cheaply but that’s easier said than done.
Yes. And for that very reason, under Biden (right before he was voted out), the US approved 3 years of tarriffs to hold off competition. The intention there is to give American automakers time to...
Yes. And for that very reason, under Biden (right before he was voted out), the US approved 3 years of tarriffs to hold off competition. The intention there is to give American automakers time to ramp up production and compete in the long term. Instead we remove ev credits and not even attempt to make use of these 3 years. We're one year in with the best showing of having Ford already prematurely submit to China after driving a car made for quality and not to nickel and dime the consumer.
And this was a long, long time coming. American car makers have been resisting alternative energies since the days of the Prius. I have no sympathy for an industry that sat on their hands for 15+ years resisting everything (including a bailout in that time) and then worrying that suddenly they can't compete when a generation of progress is made from other countries. And even then then, this is a habit that's has gone on well before any green energy was viable...
If they want to give up another industry in the US, then fine. Lift the tarriffs and let companies that want to serve consumers serve them.
They threw down tariffs to stop the Prius too, which was a part of why Toyota ramped up production in the US. The first gen was very limited in availability. The entirety of US car brands' history...
American car makers have been resisting alternative energies since the days of the Prius.
They threw down tariffs to stop the Prius too, which was a part of why Toyota ramped up production in the US. The first gen was very limited in availability.
The entirety of US car brands' history is abusing legislation to stop higher quality options from killing them on the open market. The original VW bus was curtailed with tariffs, tariffs have been repeatedly used against Japanese brands, "safety" regulations have been repeatedly changed to target Japanese brands, etc..
The rise and fall of the neat pop-up headlights that were typical of Japanese imports in the 80s/90s, iirc, was because cars were legislated to have headlights squarely facing the front at a certain height, which was bad for aerodynamics. So they had them pop up from an otherwise curved front. Then those were targeted with "safety" standards that asserted that they were pedestrian hazards.
CAFE standards were squarely an attack on the Japanese brands, which had been eating the lunch of the American shitbox companies for decades. They specifically placed tough efficiency standards on cars that were already light and efficient, and would ratchet up constantly, while basically exempting trucks and SUVs.
And I will never buy an American car. Fuck them all.
Honestly even if Chinese auto makers were allowed to be sold in the US, or if US manufacturers were able to make cars of a similar quality and price as Chinese EVs, I think they'd still lose money...
Honestly even if Chinese auto makers were allowed to be sold in the US, or if US manufacturers were able to make cars of a similar quality and price as Chinese EVs, I think they'd still lose money here.
The regulatory and cultural environment in the US are so different than that of Asia or the EU that comparing the two apples to apples really doesn't make any sense.
The main way to change the environment so that EVs become more popular here is policy, but I don't see that happening in the next 3 years, so I really don't see the American auto market being disrupted anytime soon, either by domestic or foreign brands.
From the article: … … … I don’t follow the logic. It seems like these would be reasons for cancelling expansion plans rather than discontinuing it? But there’s more to it: More plug-in hybrids...
From the article:
Ford, GM, and Stellantis are laying off thousands of EV employees, idling some plants, and reimagining others. Ford envisioned its Blue Oval City in Tennessee cranking out 500,000 electric trucks a year. This Emerald City of EVs will now become Tennessee Truck, a meat-and-potatoes ICE plant. Ford has killed off some EVs, including a second-gen Lightning and a Transit-style van, which will cost it $8.5 billion. Axing a joint battery venture with South Korea's SK On will result in another $6 billion charge.
…
Despite the chaos, automakers are now free to make whatever they like, at least until the next sheriff arrives in Washington. "Choice" is the new mantra. Unsurprisingly, their choice is to make hay and haul it by building more high-margin SUVs and pickup trucks. The Trump administration and supporters have cast this as a win for affordability, as long as one ignores the potential fuel savings over the lifespan of more efficient ICE and electric models. Feature-laden pickups and SUVs are also the models that drove the price of the average new car past $50,000 for the first time, leaving consumers with fewer affordable alternatives.
That said, the Biden administration's rules would have required companies to make about 56 percent of new passenger vehicles fully electric by 2032, up from 9 percent today. The targets, together with carrots in the form of IRA subsidies and consumer credits, led automakers to invest tens of billions of dollars in U.S. EV and battery factories, as well as tech R&D. But the goals proved too ambitious, says Sam Fiorani, vice president of AutoForecast Solutions.
…
Ford, after losing nearly $13 billion on EVs since 2023, reached the same conclusion. "We can't allocate money for things that will not make money," CEO Jim Farley told Reuters. "As much as I love those products, the customers in the U.S. were not going to pay for them. And that was the end of that."
…
The Lightning, a Ford executive told Car and Driver, actually did OK for a pioneering electric truck. Critics lauded its performance and tech, including its mobile-power capabilities. The Ford outsold the Tesla Cybertruck and Rivian R1T, along with all three of GM's electric pickups combined. But initially strong sales stalled, on pace for about 30,000 this year. The executive said emission targets would have compelled Ford to sell hundreds of thousands of Lightnings a year to offset thirstier trucks like the Super Duty series, among the brand's most profitable models. From an initial ratio of roughly one Lightning for every 10 gasoline F-series, Ford projected it would need a one-to-one sales split to meet 2032 standards. Other options, all unpalatable, involved buying climate credits or offering steep discounts to drive sales. Ultimately, the math didn't add up. Ford knew it had to pull its chips off the table.
I don’t follow the logic. It seems like these would be reasons for cancelling expansion plans rather than discontinuing it? But there’s more to it:
Ford's follow-up to the Lightning will become a series plug-in hybrid that automakers like to call an "Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV)." That new Lightning will be built in the same Detroit factory, with beefed-up towing stamina as part of a total driving range of about 700 miles. For consumers attuned to energy savings or electric advantages, a planned wave of EREV models—from brands such as VW's Scout, Ram, and Hyundai—may be the most significant showroom change sparked by the EV pullback.
These EREVs are looking like an intriguing hedge for automakers and buyers. They mix electric and internal-combustion power, but with considerably more pure-electric range to sidestep the chief criticism of more common parallel plug-in hybrids. Yet akin to the latter PHEVS, it remains to be seen whether enough consumers will understand the technology's potential or pay a premium for it. Automakers are racing back to hybrids as well, where Toyota is sitting pretty: Nearly half of Toyota's U.S. sales are now hybrids, after the company faced withering criticism for not keeping pace on EVs.
More plug-in hybrids doesn’t seem like a bad thing, particularly if they have decent electric range. Most car trips are short.
Wakefield says automakers are definitely in line for a windfall. For now, they will not face fines for falling short of C02 or mileage standards. Nor must they buy climate credits from the likes of Tesla, which padded profits via $10.7 billion in credit sales since 2012. And companies no longer need to develop and build as many EVs to meet federal targets, in a market that still faces daunting barriers to adoption. In China, Wakefield notes, EVs typically cost 5 to 10 percent less than comparable gasoline models. "Here, they still cost 25 to 30 percent more," he says. "But maybe by the end of this decade, we'll start seeing real cost parity."
…
Yet domestic automakers face a familiar dilemma. They must build popular cars at home without ignoring the wider world, including the potential existential threat of China. The CEOs of the Detroit Three insist they're not walking away from EVs.
Ford intends to bring a $30,000 electric pickup to showrooms by 2027, from its skunkworks project in California. That mid-size truck will ride on a "Universal EV Platform" designed to radically reduce costs. Ford expects EVs, EREVs, and hybrids to make up 50 percent of its global cars by 2030, or triple its 17 percent today.
To be clear, EREVs are quite different from traditional plug-in hybrids. Essentially the combustion side never drives the wheels, it's only job is to recharge a small battery, which in turn powers...
More plug-in hybrids doesn’t seem like a bad thing, particularly if they have decent electric range. Most car trips are short.
To be clear, EREVs are quite different from traditional plug-in hybrids. Essentially the combustion side never drives the wheels, it's only job is to recharge a small battery, which in turn powers an electric motor to move the vehicle.
It's an interesting balancing act because you replace the cost of a giant battery with a fuel tank which is far more energy-dense (and thus smaller/lighter), but adding the complexity of a combustion engine means you lose the reliability and low maintenance cost of a pure EV.
That's just a series hybrid power train. It sounds like EREV is just a new vehicle category made up mostly for marketing purposes? The BMW i3 as noted in another comment has always been a series...
That's just a series hybrid power train. It sounds like EREV is just a new vehicle category made up mostly for marketing purposes? The BMW i3 as noted in another comment has always been a series hybrid, and Nissan has been producing them for 15 years or so.
It greatly simplifies the power train which is why it's attractive to manufacturers.
So it seems like a hybrid is any vehicle powered by both a combustion engine and electric motors. A PHEV is a subset of hybrids consisting of a vehicle that can be recharged either via shore power or an internal generator. A EREV is a subset of PHEVs consisting of any vehicle with a series hybrid power train and "relatively large" traction battery?
They've done a really good job of making this extremely confusing for consumers.
Sounds similar to the defunct BMW i3 REX. Do you know if EREVs eliminate the complicated and failure prone automatic and CVT transmissions with a simpler system like well-designed hybrids such as...
Sounds similar to the defunct BMW i3 REX.
Do you know if EREVs eliminate the complicated and failure prone automatic and CVT transmissions with a simpler system like well-designed hybrids such as the Prius do?
Yes, it's basically an i3 REX. Since they stay under a constant load, that is, the load of the alternator, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need any changeable gearing (CVT or otherwise). EREV...
Yes, it's basically an i3 REX.
Since they stay under a constant load, that is, the load of the alternator, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need any changeable gearing (CVT or otherwise).
EREV engines are also much smaller than conventional engines (the i3 REV had a 650cc scooter engine).
However they would run at a fixed RPM for efficiency, so they would have a constant drone similar to the effect of a CVT.
Also worth noting that fuel degrades over time and stagnant, months-old fuel can damage the engine, so someone who doesn't use all the fuel in a timely manner may need the fuel purging before refilling
The new Hybrid Civics, which I'm excited about, as they're basically the new Sport/Sport Touring trims but now with more torque and 20 more horsepower, already use a simplified transmission. They...
The new Hybrid Civics, which I'm excited about, as they're basically the new Sport/Sport Touring trims but now with more torque and 20 more horsepower, already use a simplified transmission. They have a planetary gearbox that's just forward on motor, forward on engine (only highway cruising), reverse. The engine is mostly only used like a series hybrid, in the Atkinson cycle. The Atkinson cycle yields less power but better efficiency, so it's not great for accelerating...unlike the electric motor. The shift to running off of the engine happens in highway conditions, because load is light and constant, so it's more energy efficient under that scenario. (Notably, my non-hybrid Civic ST already gets over 40mpg on the highway if I leave it on cruise control...)
Consumer EVs, such as Musk Swasticars, tend to use a single-gear setup. But F1 cars, which have been series hybrids for over a decade, have a full clutchless sequential gearbox with eight gears. So it comes down to what you're engineering for.
And thus, American carmakers, determined to remain metaphorical dinosaurs burning physical dinosaurs, will be left in the dust when other imports fully disrupt the market.
If there were a smart CEO not chasing shareholder profits, they'd be working to phase out gasoline entirely regardless of current government bailout plans.
I don’t think it’s that simple. All the carmakers did try their hands at EVs, and they’re all insanely in the red, completely propped up by their ICE suv sales.
Ford lost $5b from their EV division in 2024. Their net income is $5.9b.
This is not “CEO chasing a mild quarterly bump”, this is “this is losing an existential amount of money”.
Of course, it’s simple to say that Ford should simply learn to make EVs better and more cheaply but that’s easier said than done.
Yes. And for that very reason, under Biden (right before he was voted out), the US approved 3 years of tarriffs to hold off competition. The intention there is to give American automakers time to ramp up production and compete in the long term. Instead we remove ev credits and not even attempt to make use of these 3 years. We're one year in with the best showing of having Ford already prematurely submit to China after driving a car made for quality and not to nickel and dime the consumer.
And this was a long, long time coming. American car makers have been resisting alternative energies since the days of the Prius. I have no sympathy for an industry that sat on their hands for 15+ years resisting everything (including a bailout in that time) and then worrying that suddenly they can't compete when a generation of progress is made from other countries. And even then then, this is a habit that's has gone on well before any green energy was viable...
If they want to give up another industry in the US, then fine. Lift the tarriffs and let companies that want to serve consumers serve them.
They threw down tariffs to stop the Prius too, which was a part of why Toyota ramped up production in the US. The first gen was very limited in availability.
The entirety of US car brands' history is abusing legislation to stop higher quality options from killing them on the open market. The original VW bus was curtailed with tariffs, tariffs have been repeatedly used against Japanese brands, "safety" regulations have been repeatedly changed to target Japanese brands, etc..
The rise and fall of the neat pop-up headlights that were typical of Japanese imports in the 80s/90s, iirc, was because cars were legislated to have headlights squarely facing the front at a certain height, which was bad for aerodynamics. So they had them pop up from an otherwise curved front. Then those were targeted with "safety" standards that asserted that they were pedestrian hazards.
CAFE standards were squarely an attack on the Japanese brands, which had been eating the lunch of the American shitbox companies for decades. They specifically placed tough efficiency standards on cars that were already light and efficient, and would ratchet up constantly, while basically exempting trucks and SUVs.
And I will never buy an American car. Fuck them all.
Honestly even if Chinese auto makers were allowed to be sold in the US, or if US manufacturers were able to make cars of a similar quality and price as Chinese EVs, I think they'd still lose money here.
The regulatory and cultural environment in the US are so different than that of Asia or the EU that comparing the two apples to apples really doesn't make any sense.
The main way to change the environment so that EVs become more popular here is policy, but I don't see that happening in the next 3 years, so I really don't see the American auto market being disrupted anytime soon, either by domestic or foreign brands.
From the article:
…
…
…
I don’t follow the logic. It seems like these would be reasons for cancelling expansion plans rather than discontinuing it? But there’s more to it:
More plug-in hybrids doesn’t seem like a bad thing, particularly if they have decent electric range. Most car trips are short.
…
To be clear, EREVs are quite different from traditional plug-in hybrids. Essentially the combustion side never drives the wheels, it's only job is to recharge a small battery, which in turn powers an electric motor to move the vehicle.
It's an interesting balancing act because you replace the cost of a giant battery with a fuel tank which is far more energy-dense (and thus smaller/lighter), but adding the complexity of a combustion engine means you lose the reliability and low maintenance cost of a pure EV.
That's just a series hybrid power train. It sounds like EREV is just a new vehicle category made up mostly for marketing purposes? The BMW i3 as noted in another comment has always been a series hybrid, and Nissan has been producing them for 15 years or so.
It greatly simplifies the power train which is why it's attractive to manufacturers.
So it seems like a hybrid is any vehicle powered by both a combustion engine and electric motors. A PHEV is a subset of hybrids consisting of a vehicle that can be recharged either via shore power or an internal generator. A EREV is a subset of PHEVs consisting of any vehicle with a series hybrid power train and "relatively large" traction battery?
They've done a really good job of making this extremely confusing for consumers.
Sounds similar to the defunct BMW i3 REX.
Do you know if EREVs eliminate the complicated and failure prone automatic and CVT transmissions with a simpler system like well-designed hybrids such as the Prius do?
Yes, it's basically an i3 REX.
Since they stay under a constant load, that is, the load of the alternator, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need any changeable gearing (CVT or otherwise).
EREV engines are also much smaller than conventional engines (the i3 REV had a 650cc scooter engine).
However they would run at a fixed RPM for efficiency, so they would have a constant drone similar to the effect of a CVT.
Also worth noting that fuel degrades over time and stagnant, months-old fuel can damage the engine, so someone who doesn't use all the fuel in a timely manner may need the fuel purging before refilling
The new Hybrid Civics, which I'm excited about, as they're basically the new Sport/Sport Touring trims but now with more torque and 20 more horsepower, already use a simplified transmission. They have a planetary gearbox that's just forward on motor, forward on engine (only highway cruising), reverse. The engine is mostly only used like a series hybrid, in the Atkinson cycle. The Atkinson cycle yields less power but better efficiency, so it's not great for accelerating...unlike the electric motor. The shift to running off of the engine happens in highway conditions, because load is light and constant, so it's more energy efficient under that scenario. (Notably, my non-hybrid Civic ST already gets over 40mpg on the highway if I leave it on cruise control...)
Consumer EVs, such as Musk Swasticars, tend to use a single-gear setup. But F1 cars, which have been series hybrids for over a decade, have a full clutchless sequential gearbox with eight gears. So it comes down to what you're engineering for.