GM Delays EV Truck Production At Michigan Plant By Another Year (reuters.com) 114
General Motors said it will delay production of electric pickups trucks at its plant in Michigan by another year as the No. 1 U.S. automaker grapples with flattening demand for electric vehicles. Reuters reports: The move is the latest sign that electric vehicle production and demand may not be as strong as forecast. GM had been set to begin production of the electric Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra in late 2024 at the suburban Detroit plant. The company said the plan now is to start it in late 2025.
GM said the change was being made "to better manage capital investment while aligning with evolving EV demand" but said the move does not impact its battery plant plans. GM said in July battery production at the Ultium joint venture plant Ohio has been hampered because "our automation equipment supplier is struggling with delivery issues."
The automaker in July reiterated a previous target of building 400,000 EVs from 2022 through the first half of 2024, and projected EV revenue of $50 billion in 2025. GM has said it is targeting production of roughly 100,000 EVs in the second half of 2023. Reuters reported in July that the U.S. electric vehicle market is growing, but not quickly enough to prevent unsold EVs from stacking up at some automakers' dealerships.
GM said the change was being made "to better manage capital investment while aligning with evolving EV demand" but said the move does not impact its battery plant plans. GM said in July battery production at the Ultium joint venture plant Ohio has been hampered because "our automation equipment supplier is struggling with delivery issues."
The automaker in July reiterated a previous target of building 400,000 EVs from 2022 through the first half of 2024, and projected EV revenue of $50 billion in 2025. GM has said it is targeting production of roughly 100,000 EVs in the second half of 2023. Reuters reported in July that the U.S. electric vehicle market is growing, but not quickly enough to prevent unsold EVs from stacking up at some automakers' dealerships.
Dump the Truck (Score:1)
Like 'lectric blade
EV's suck
For razor, trade
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:2)
Myanmar.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you?
The median car age in the US is 12.5 years.
If EVs win out after 10 years that's still a win, assuming battery management allows them to last that long.
I think it's getting there, but I'm not sure. I have a 2016 i3 and the battery is definitely suffering, but the 2017+ models have very little degradation.
CO2 break even point (Re: Dump the Truck) (Score:1)
The CO2 break even point on gasoline vs. BEV has many variables, and the years the vehicle is driven has less to do with that point than the miles.
Here's something I found with a quick search:
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
The claim is the break even point could be beyond 75000 miles.
I saw a YouTube video recently where someone claimed the break even point on CO2 emissions was well beyond the typical miles a car would be expected to drive in its operational life, meaning on average a fuel efficient gasoli
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The claim is the break even point could be beyond 75000 miles.
nowhere in the usa is 100% coal powered anymore
Power scenario 2: U.S. average energy mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables)
Break-even point: 13,500 miles
Power scenario 3: 100% coal-fired
Break-even point: 78,700 miles
even if we were being nice and say 30k, that's a significant difference in lifetime emissions considering the average lifetime is 150kish, 80%
so this youtube guy is off from a factor of 10 from this estimate, how does he calculate this kinda extrordinary claim
Re: (Score:3)
This is complete drivel. The carbon emissions of ICE are worse than for an EV after about 20k miles.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In the article the numbers were all over the place. I'll quote a couple segments from your link to demonstrate.
University of Liege researcher Damien Ernst said in 2019 that the typical EV would have to travel nearly 700,000 km before it emitted less CO2 than a comparable gasoline vehicle. He later revised his figures down.
But if the same Tesla was being driven in Norway, which generates almost all its electricity from renewable hydropower, the break-even point would come after just 8,400 miles.
That's quite a difference, and far from an agreement that the break even point is 20000 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just grabbing a quick first article written in an accessible style. The consensus view is 20k miles across many researchers. See, for example:
https://www.politifact.com/art... [politifact.com]
You can go argue with Auke Hoekstra on Twitter if you want, but I wouldn't advise it
Re:CO2 break even point (Re: Dump the Truck) (Score:4, Informative)
SIGH.
First off, as the AC above pointed out, nowhere in the US is 100% coal. Coal is a dying fuel source. Even in major developing markets where it still grows, it declines in percentage terms and its growth is leveling off. In the US and most developed countries, it's in free fall. In the US it is now a relatively minor player in power generation.
Secondly, even if it were 78,7k miles, the average American car is driven over 14k miles per year and stays on the road an average of 20 years, so that's a blip.
Third, all of these "breakeven" numbers are always obsolete, because you have a chain of delays:
1) You, in the present, search for an article.
2) The article you find was published previously, possibly years ago
3) That article cites research (or occasionally not even research, just non-peer-reviewed garbage) that was reported previously, possibly years ago.
4) The research is based on data that was collected previously, often years ago.
So you get years (sometimes even a decade or more!) lag on the data - in a field where energy consumption and emissions in EV manufacture have been dropping precipitously every year.
I'd advise you look at EV makers' impact reports, as they usually publish their data (but there's still lag! Just not as much). For example, here's Tesla's most recent (2022) report [tesla.com]. You'll see that they use much less water per vehicle (including cell manufacturer) than ICEs, and that producing the battery is down to just 27% of the total CO2 emissions of producing the vehicles (while at the same time skipping the "producing an ICE engine" part) - while vehicles emit vastly more in operation than is emitted in production. The 2021 report [tesla.com] (even more dated) has some better graphics, pages 60-62.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:CO2 break even point (Re: Dump the Truck) (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, coal is dying. [eia.gov]
They're not only being shut down as they age, but the mean lifespan is being slashed, too [researchgate.net]
And coal is not coming back. [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well one of my friends owns zero coal mines, so from my point of view, coal is dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, all of these "breakeven" numbers are always obsolete, because you have a chain of delays:
Of course there's a delay in the results, but I recall an old saying that says something about the horse with a history of the fastest running times tends to win the next race. What is important in these results is that it gives estimates based on what produces the electricity when and where the study was done, and that is useful in the here and now because people can use that for how long they can expect to drive their vehicle to reach that break even point by comparing to where their electricity comes fr
Re: (Score:2)
If you are interested in playing with those variables, I suggest tinkering with the GREET Model [anl.gov] from Argonne National Lab. It's probably the comprehensive model to make these comparisons (or, at least, the one that's most transparent about what assumptions are being made). Put in the values for this or that factor you think are important, and you can determi
Re: (Score:2)
Think that Tesla is lying about the carbon-intensity of their batteries?
As I pointed out in a different post I expect the EV manufacturers to be completely honest in their analysis, I'll add further that they'd be incentivized to be honest as people will be standing in line to pick their data apart. What I also expect is them to do is leave out any data that is inconvenient for their case, a lie by omission in a way. They'd state their assumptions up front, perhaps in the fine print but it will be there, but there's always going to be a question on if they don't have their th
Re: Dump the Truck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people, myself included, are waiting for the next generation of solid state batteries to hit. 400+ mile range, lasts the life of the car, can't catch fire and charges in 10 minutes. Toyota may be first to market with these.
Re: Dump the Truck (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a citation on the 5 year point?
Life cycle break even is estimated at 17.4k miles [cyberswitching.com] - Average annual miles is 13.5k [caranddriver.com]. Or about 5 seasons (1.3 years), not 5 years.
Reuters [reuters.com] estimates 13.5k, back in 2021. Which is 1 year.
2-6 years [usatoday.com], depending on driving average american amounts per year, depending on the mix of power you have. 2 years for green energy, 6 if you're pretty much 100% fossil fuels.
If you use british data, Forbes [forbes.com] says that 30k miles will see you break even in 1 year, but for some reason "up to 10k miles/year" means you'll need 5. Probably using average mileage for the < 10k miles category, which is probably ~6k miles/year.
They recommend a "Full Hybrid" car for light users. Which I hadn't heard of before. Turns out that it's between "mild hybrid", and "PHEV" - Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. They might call my car a "full hybrid", but I've been calling it a mild one - I can go (very) short distances on all electric, at low speeds.
So it's a spectrum:
ICE - no battery power to the wheels, no regeneration, etc...
Mild hybrid - provides an acceleration boost, a little regenerative braking. This is like the old GM vehicles that would shut off when you stopped. They basically had a more powerful starter that would get the car going while also starting the engine. Tiny battery
Full hybrid - can imitate a golf cart for a bit. Small battery. Bigger motors than the milds.
PHEV - even bigger motor, medium battery pack.
EV - might have a bigger motor than the PHEV, large to huge battery pack.
A "full hybrid" would maximize use of the battery pack system, while minimizing the amount of battery. This would help conserve fuel, reducing CO2 emissions, while keeping the CO2 cost of the battery low.
But anyways, I think you're looking at pessimistic quotes, and odds are the EVs will last more than 5 years, so they're still the better option. Especially since the average age of cars(light passenger vehicles) in the USA is over a decade. Not lifespan, average age.
As for battery life - well, we've gone through like 5 major revisions of the battery chemistry in the last decade. They just keep getting better - cheaper, longer lasting, more energy, etc...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So it's a spectrum:
ICE - no battery power to the wheels, no regeneration, etc...
Mild hybrid - provides an acceleration boost, a little regenerative braking. This is like the old GM vehicles that would shut off when you stopped. They basically had a more powerful starter that would get the car going while also starting the engine. Tiny battery
Full hybrid - can imitate a golf cart for a bit. Small battery. Bigger motors than the milds.
PHEV - even bigger motor, medium battery pack.
EV - might have a bigger motor than the PHEV, large to huge battery pack.
It appears that many people forget that there's a spectrum here, not just ICEV vs. BEV. I expect that in a few years the ICEV as we see them today will disappear with every vehicle having some elements of what we consider a "hybrid" now. The changes will be subtle enough that it might not even be apparent that the changes have been made, it's just that people expect a "golf cart mode" (the ICE turns off when stopped for a traffic light and starts immediately with pressing the accelerator) on their new veh
Re: (Score:2)
I guess might be a called a "full hybrid" where the ICE is merely on the smallish side of what comes in the ICE-only version of that same model vehicle.
We have ones now where the engine is the exact same size. It might even be the big one.
The big deal is generally retuning the engine to be Atkinson cycle, rather than Otto. This costs low-end horsepower, and generally lowers the power density of the engine, but substantially increases fuel efficiency. You then cover the lost low end power with the electric motor system.
But yeah. I've been advocating for contractors to get PHEV vans that have the full engine - so they can tow and use the engine as a job
Re: (Score:2)
We have ones now where the engine is the exact same size. It might even be the big one.
Indeed. Perhaps I wasn't clear before but I meant to point out that on the hybrid vehicle spectrum the ICE will be the same size as the non-hybrid option. I've not seen any model of hybrid where there is more than one ICE option, and when there's more than one option of engine for the ICE-only variant the hybrid uses the lower power version. As an example if there is a vehicle that has a V4 or V6 option then the hybrid option will use the same V4 engine of the ICE-only variant. If there's a hybrid vehic
Re: (Score:3)
Overall US power outages are increasing, but it's very uneven [scientificamerican.com].
BTW, in natural disasters, you generally want to be in an EV. This article [dailykos.com] (now quite dated) analyzing EV ownership vs. gas car ownership in Harvey and Irma illustrates the point (the difference is even greater today). TL/DR: during natural disasters (and in advance of them, where they're predictable), fuel shortages are abundant and crippling, and it's a much worse problem than power shortages, even in disasters that are primarily "power grid
Re: (Score:2)
Overall US power outages are increasing, but it's very uneven.
Interesting, and thanks.
BTW, in natural disasters, you generally want to be in an EV
In the event of a hurricane coming you'd want to be in an EV, or that least that's what I took away from your link. Out here in the Midwest USA there's a greater threat to life from cold than heat, and to prepare for that I'd expect an ICEV or PHEV to be a better option. The problem of burning fuel while idling if there's a traffic jam would be a concern but if I'm stuck on some road on my way out of the path of a snowstorm then that burning fuel produces lifesaving heat.
We had a b
Re: (Score:2)
In the event of a hurricane coming you'd want to be in an EV, or that least that's what I took away from your link. Out here in the Midwest USA there's a greater threat to life from cold than heat, and to prepare for that I'd expect an ICEV or PHEV to be a better option. The problem of burning fuel while idling if there's a traffic jam would be a concern but if I'm stuck on some road on my way out of the path of a snowstorm then that burning fuel produces lifesaving heat.
I looked into this because I used to live in Alaska. What I ended up with was proposing to retrofit a high efficiency burner into EVs, just for heat.
But in the Midwest(I used to live in Nebraska), the heat pump most EVs have are capable of providing you sufficient heat for days. If not, well, some blankets and warm clothing can provide the limited boost you need.
A PHEV would generally be the "best of both worlds" option, in that you don't need to keep the engine running to keep providing heat.
As for a NG
Re: (Score:2)
It's common in areas that are older....and get hit by hurricanes or strong storms from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't "supply and demand", it's "inability to produce at competitive margins". Tesla launched a global BEV price war at the start of the year, at a time when most automakers were already at "roughly zero" automotive margins (which are always higher than net margins) on their EVs, some outright negative. So exactly how many EVs do you expect them to produce when losing cash? Most are going back to the drawing board to redesign their next generation platforms because their sales price points were
Lack of demand or boneheaded choices hobbling futu (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought a 2023 Chevy Bolt EUV. Iâ(TM)ve had it since April and couldnâ(TM)t be happier. It is an awesome car at a fair price.
It also has wireless CarPlay - a requirement for me when considering a new car.
All 2024 and newer Chevy EVs were scheduled to feature faster charging (yeah!) but no CarPlay and a MUCH higher starting price for larger vehicles.
Me, I am glad I ordered what I did when I did. It was a brief moment when the stars aligned and one could get reasonable value for the money. Then top brass went and messed it all up for future customers.
No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a 2023 Chevy Bolt EUV. I've had it since April and couldn't be happier. It is an awesome car at a fair price.
It's no secret that I'm personally not the biggest fan of EVs due to their cost and potential battery longevity issues. However, my partner has a 60 mile-per-day commute and his previous car payment plus the cost of gas was actually higher (by roughly $100/mo) than what we figured he'd be paying on a Bolt EUV. For shits and giggles, we went to the dealer and had them kick some numbers around on his trade and they actually were able to put together a decent deal. I guess supply really has caught up with d
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the auto makers Chevy really seemed to understand using the high torque of an electric motor was fun.
Their Spark EV wasn't fast (low horsepower), but threw 300 ft lb of torque at 0 RPMs and was a fun pep machine.
Their their bolts and volts similar, excellent 0-30 and decent 0-60, especially if compared to something like a civic which would be their closest competitor in size and luxury.
Re: (Score:2)
Their their bolts and volts similar, excellent 0-30 and decent 0-60, especially if compared to something like a civic which would be their closest competitor in size and luxury.
I'm used to driving vehicles that have 9 to 10 second (or worse) 0-60 times, so I was blown away by how fast the Bolt EUV accelerates.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, in urban driving what counts for me is 0 to 40. My Renault Zoe is only about 9.5 seconds 0 to 60, but 0 to 40 is much faster than you'd expected, it's 40 to 60 that's slow. So it is really great in town driving, which is 99% of my driving -- small and nimble
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a Prius. My average speed to and from work is 21mph. While I enjoy a fast 0-40 in power mode, 99% of the time if I accelerate fast I'd hit the car in front of me.
Re: (Score:2)
London is mostly now 20mph speed limits, but there's enough places where that's not the case that it's still fun for me. I am glad not to have to drive to work each day!
Re: (Score:2)
They're a pleasure to drive.
I test drove a volt plug in hybrid and a spark EV before getting the bmw i3 plug in hybrid.
The newer volts were too expensive, and I wasn't sure about the long term support on the bolt EV, and both had fairly sad interiors.
But driving that spark at reasonable speeds was joyous.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, if you think the *Bolt*'s acceleration is good... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried one? In the low end (0-40 mph), it DOES have really good acceleration for it's class. It feels like the acceleration I used to get in small cars that had a turbo in them (before turbo became a way to get better gas mileage by reducing the size of the engine and making up for it with a turbo).
If I hit the gas in a little commuter car and it pushes me back in my seat, that's really good acceleration for its class.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're coming from a gas econobox, I can imagine how you'd feel like a 6,5s 0-60 is a lot.
The *slowest* Tesla does 0-60 in 5,8s (and that's slowed down from what it was until recently, used to be 5,3s for the slowest). The base long range Model 3 is 4,2s, without acceleration boost, and performance is 3,1s.
Or, say, for non-Teslas: the slowest Mach E is 6,1s (2 trims). Then 5,8s (2 trims), 5,2s (2 trims), 4,8s (2 trims), 3,8s, and finally 3,5s.
The standard for EV acceleration is a lot sportier than the s
Re: Lack of demand or boneheaded choices hobbling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also has wireless CarPlay - a requirement for me when considering a new car.
Think about it: a $500 device determines whether or not a $20k+ vehicle is worthy of buying. We are fucked. Why is audio vertically integrated? To get exactly this result. Fuck that, I have not bought a car in 20 years because of this nonsense.
(The most epic CAPTCHA ever: abjure. Does AI choose these based on the contents of the message?)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think top brass messed it up, that Bolt you got for that price was losing GM money. It was a compliance car. If they have to show a profit they couldn't sell it for that price.
Must be a Truck (Score:3)
Ford is getting murdered in the market and the press because their EV truck is bad at everything a truck is for and is bad at being an aerodynamic SUV which is all it really is.
GM needs to have K1500 parity before going to market. 2500+ is a different story.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's be honest here. The vast majority of the people driving around suburbia and the city aren't doing truck things with their truck. They aren't hauling a yacht, they aren't getting a load of gravel (can't scratch up that fancy bed liner!), they aren't hauling lumber (bed can't fit 4x8 plywood or sheetrock anyhow), and they aren't taking it offroad with those fancy alloy wheels and low profile tires either.
They haul their ass back and forth to work and the grocery store. Most trade workers have box trucks
Re: (Score:2)
"The vast majority of the people driving around suburbia and the city aren't doing truck things with their truck"
An anti-Tesla investor on SeekingAlpha told me some years back that "vast majority" of trucks in his West Texas stomping grounds have never felt the touch of even 1 piece of lumber.
So yes, most of them could easily cope with having an EV as the 2nd vehicle or even a daily driver.
Re: (Score:2)
An anti-Tesla investor on SeekingAlpha told me some years back that "vast majority" of trucks in his West Texas stomping grounds have never felt the touch of even 1 piece of lumber.
It's like that in Florida, too. Certainly, people in the trades use them for actual hauling purposes, but your average suburban dweller buys one because he thinks it looks really cool sitting in the parking lot at Publix.
Re: (Score:2)
My brother's an electrician. He doesn't drive a truck, he drives a panel van. You know, so his tools and supplies are at least a little protected from the weather and theft, plus it's easier to get to stuff than being placed in today's ridiculously huge and tall trucks?
They've tried to sell him a truck before though. Because that's the money maker.
I think a PHEV would be ideal for him - a big battery for the reduced mileage cost, plus an engine capable of acting as a job site generator, for when he's wor
Re: (Score:2)
My brother's an electrician. He doesn't drive a truck, he drives a panel van.
I completely agree that a full-size van is the more practical vehicle for trade work, but I see plenty of people at construction sites with pickup trucks. If I had to guess, I'd say a big contributing factor is that vans absolutely suck to drive. If you own one, you'll absolutely want a secondary vehicle for when you're not on the job. A truck ends up being a reasonable enough compromise if you're only going to own a single vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think a PHEV would be ideal for him - a big battery for the reduced mileage cost, plus an engine capable of acting as a job site generator"
A quarter century past I worked for a friend's renovation company demolishing houses, including through 4 winters.
Not fun & not something I would a last a full day doing now.
Something like the F-150 Lightning would have been a fantastic asset& while I rarely find myself in agreement with Bob Lutz, I did applaud his support of hybrid startup Via Motors
https://w [motortrend.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The best selling 3 vehicles in the US are pickup trucks (Ford, Chevy, then ram. Number 6 is GMC), so it seems pretty obvious most aren't used as "trucks".
I will say though, I love my fake truck (Honda Ridgeline). The mileage is frustrating at times, but the tiny bed is super convenient a couple times a month, and the ride is nice.
I miss when I lived near a car share where I could no hassle rent a truck by the hour 3 blocks away and own a tiny car for normal use.
But as it is, I use the bed enough that dealin
Re: (Score:2)
Since 10 months I drive a Nissan Ariya and have done some 15000 mi among which a 2300 mi round trip from Denmark to France, the car has behaved beautifully and charging every ~2-3 hrs is easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's be honest here. The vast majority of the people driving around suburbia and the city aren't doing truck things with their truck.
Let's be honest, some people are doing "truck things" with their truck.
I noticed when I moved into my house that all the neighbors up and down the street drove 4WD vehicles. I don't know why I noticed this but I realized in the first winter why this was the case. The neighborhood is quite hilly and the city tends to plow major roads twice before venturing into side streets like those in front of my house. I got stuck in the street many times after first moving in and at one point I had enough and sold my
Re: Must be a Truck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether you are in a white collar or blue collar neighborhood. I'm in a blue collar one, there are tons of trucks, and I see them doing truck things all the time. That includes pulling trailers, and hauling work supplies, and even 4x8 plywood, which can fit with tailgate down.
I wonder if there's also a media blitz (Score:2)
Not only this, but I've been seeing a LOT of "EVs Suck!" type news articles lately. "How much EVs actually cost!", "Hidden dangers of EVs", "How hybrids are better than EVs", etc...
Makes me wonder if there's a campaign out there to put down EVs a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hidden dangers of EVs"
Like feeling really silly when you start planning your trips to gas stations based on which ones have the best* selection of junk foods, rather than the cheapest gas.
* Spoiler alert: It's always Wawa.
Re: I wonder if there's also a media blitz (Score:3)
Clearly you haven't been to buc-ee's if you think Wawa has the best gas station food...
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if there's a campaign out there to put down EVs a bit.
With all the hype that's been given about BEVs for the last (pulling a number out of my head) 15 years there's plenty of room for merely some realism to pull people back.
One example is the claims of how quickly a BEV can charge does need a reality check given what I've seen. I expect it is true that people can get 80% range in 10 minutes, or whatever the claim might be, but that's with ideal conditions of the battery not getting below 5% (or whatever) before stopping for a charge, the weather being mild (t
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...
The battery not being below 5% - I haven't ever heard of this being an issue. Charging slows when the battery is nearly full, not nearly empty.
Too hot or cold - cold shouldn't be an issue, so long as it isn't grossly outside of operating temperatures (like a really cold day in Alaska/Canada, around -40), as charging the battery isn't 100%, and one of the limiting factors for fast charging is heat. If you don't need to operate the battery warmers, being able to dump heat faster just helps the proces
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it may be that the truth about how the EV use case doesn't fit the average American if you don't live on the far east/west coast....
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the titles are mostly clickbait.
Either the article itself is mostly "EVs are actually pretty great despite this!" or the hazard is seriously overstated, like the stuff telling people to not charge their phones overnight because Apple messed up their design and/or people were stupid enough to charge their phones in hotboxes(under the blankets, insulating them).
My phone, for example, does an explicit slow charge when plugged in at night. I also have it set so it doesn't actually charge to
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more on infrastructure....
You have plenty (apparently) of charging stations out there on the west coast and east coasts....but across the country, it just isn't there yet...you have to hunt and plan where to charge if taking a remotely distant trip.
And like others have talked about, the EV trucks aren't ready to replace ICE pickup trucks, where people actually use them.
For the most part, across the middle of the US, people, the majori
Chinese having a laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't wait for it to come out that the UAW is China funded/controlled. At least I hope they are, because the alternative is that the UAW is doing this out of sheer stupidity. I'd rather we got screwed by next-level outsmarting than sheer stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big three automakers and the UAW deserve each other. However if (though likely when) they all implode, the democratic party will be more than happy to provide corporate welfare, because union jobs are too big to fail even though they produce some of the worlds crappiest cars. And that's something that can be said objectively based on how they fare on consumer reports reliability ratings. Six of the bottom nine car brands are UAW. The only two UAW brands that aren't near the bottom are Lincoln an
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, Tata has them beat when it comes to crap.
Ford EV Truck sales off 46% (Score:3)
Sales of the F-150 lightning electric pickup were off about 46% during third quarter due to slower-than-expected demand and downtime at the plant [CNBC 10/04/2023] [cnbc.com]
Ford sold 6,464 F150 Lightning EVs in Q3 2022, but sales in Q3 2023 fell to just 3,503 which annualizes to only 42,000 per year. Ford executives think pretend theyre going to sell hundreds of thousands of EV pickups per year, but demand has already imploded. Even worse, a great many of the recent Lightning sales are to governmental fleets. Consumers have rejected this product.
As for downtime at the plant affecting sales of the F150 Lighting EV, an ideal supply of vehicles on dealer lots is 60 days worth, Ford dealers are currently choking on a 97-day supply of Lightnings nationwide with 3,632 for sale [caredge.com]. Downtime is not retarding sales.
Meanwhile, Ford has suddenly canceled all further deliveries to dealers of 2023 model year F150 Lightnings that are not already pre-sold.
Ford cancels dealer stock orders of 2023 F-150 Lightning to do quality checks [Detroit Free Press 10/02/2023] [freep.com]
Additional quality checks? Is something wrong with them?
No, the issue is the growing glut of 2023 model year F150 Lightnings.
Re: (Score:2)
I think PHEV makes more sense for a pickup. No gas for normal use, but range when you need it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Tesla model Y is their most popular, and it's a SUV.
As for the Cybertruck, well, as I understand it it's become a lot more standard in order to meet crash requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest thing truck buyers are likely bothered by is the 320 mile range. For a commuter sedan that's very good, but for trucks...eh...
Re: (Score:3)
Disappointing, but not that concerning.
Pickup trucks are used by blue collar folks and/or while collar folks who fantasize that they're manly men doing manly things, and Ford in particular has a conservative consumer base [reddit.com].
All those things that are not great cultural fits for EVs.
I see it more as Ford trying to buy itself some good PR and prepping for the eventual transition, but EV sedans are going to lead the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Every company has issues with their first EVs. Ford has made some smaller EVs before, but the F-150 was a new platform and I think the first widely sold in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a first day reservation, heck, I had it 10 minutes after the reveal show was over. However, Ford allowed dealer to prioritize "good customers" to the top of the list, 5 in the case of my dealer. I ended up being #9 on their list when I should have been #4. They only received 5 for the first year (to be fair that "year" was only 6 months long). So I had t
Economics 101 ++price == --demand (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't demand, it's that Ford will happily sell you a fully loaded 4x4 V8 F150 Lariat for $60K. However, for a similarly spaced out Lightning Lariat the want $80K. That's.a 33% premium, which paired with a 7% financing offer, leaves only those comfortable with a $1425/month car payment to buy their EV truck.
The GM Silverado EV is even more whacko with a BASE price of $80K.
The addressable market for EV trucks at >$75K is tiny. Another problem with hyper-expensive EV versions of gas trucks with $35K base models is that people spending >$75K on a truck don't want to be lopped in the same Venn diagram as a $35K truck.
Tesla's best selling model is a sub $50K all wheel drive SUV with 300 miles of range that doesn't even have cloth seats as an option. The cheapest Ford option with all wheel drive and a 300 mile range is $70K, and you can only get cloth seats at that price.
So it's all whiney nonsense, Ford and GM don't WANT to sell a $50K EV truck people want. They're in the "nobody wants these" phase, while ignoring the "for a 33% premium over our gas models". There's a non-zero chance they will get hollowed out by the Cybertruck *if* Tesla manages to deliver a $50K 4x4 with 300 miles of range that (gasp) has seats that aren't cloth.
Re: (Score:2)
You numbers and reasoning make sense, but as a non-American I am confused by the repeated mention of cloth seats. Are cloth seats "good" or "bad" in this context? My 1990 hatchback has cloth seats which have survived 320k km and are still just fine... so in my mind, cloth seats are a positive feature of a car. What is the alternative? Leather? Fake leather? The only leather seats I've seen after 30 years and 320k km are pretty gross, and even when new, leather seats are prone to getting uncomfortably hot an
Re: Economics 101 ++price == --demand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Economics 101 ++price == --demand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's all whiney nonsense, Ford and GM don't WANT to sell a $50K EV truck people want.
That was obvious back when Ford announced they were discontinuing all cars except the Mustang... and they were also re-using the Mustang brand on -- wait for it -- a new SUV. My dad drives a Ford Fusion, which is a truly excellent car. In its last model year, it sold in excess of 250,000 cars, and Ford boldly announced they were getting rid of cars because nobody buys them.
Automobile manufacturers are so greedy and stupid. I'm so glad my 9-year-old WRX is still in great shape, because I'd be really upset
Re: (Score:2)
So it's all whiney nonsense, Ford and GM don't WANT to sell a $50K EV truck people want. They're in the "nobody wants these" phase, while ignoring the "for a 33% premium over our gas models". There's a non-zero chance they will get hollowed out by the Cybertruck *if* Tesla manages to deliver a $50K 4x4 with 300 miles of range that (gasp) has seats that aren't cloth.
This. You also forgot to mention that towing range is abysmal with electric trucks. Just terrible. No boating for you, expensive truck owner.
Re: (Score:2)
This. You also forgot to mention that towing range is abysmal with electric trucks. Just terrible. No boating for you, expensive truck owner.
You forgot to mention that range drops about the same with gas trucks (lots of people have show and said that). The advantage they have is 5 min refuels. Once solid state batteries are mainstream, an EV truck will do just as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Demand seems to be there... (Score:2)
Ford is having no problems selling the F-150 lightning (last I heard they still had a waiting list) so why would GM think there would be no buyers for their electric pickups?
Re: (Score:2)
There's something that's impacting sales of the F-150 Lightning.
https://electrek.co/2023/10/13... [electrek.co]
There's other articles and it seems that there's been a severe drop in demand, union troubles are impacting production, supply problems are impacting production, something else, or some mix of all the above. Whatever the case there's something going on with Ford F-150 Lightning sales.
If you can show that demand is unchanged then that still leaves Ford reducing supply for some reason or another, and that reason
It is Elons fault ... right? (Score:1)
At least that is my wild guess.
Hint (Score:2)
Maybe consumers are waiting for 2024 (Score:2)
The federal tax incentives for EVs get way better in 2024. Consumers can get the tax credit even if they don't make enough money to owe much tax. The downside is fewer vehicles may qualify.
Also lots of EV makers have promised to support Tesla Superchargers in 2024. If they come through that will make a big difference on road trips.
Amazing torque for acceleration, then what ? (Score:2)
Re: Amazing torque for acceleration, then what ? (Score:2)
They cost too much. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people that own a truck don't use it to tow anything.
According to the article "GM had originally been scheduled to begin production of the electric Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra in late 2024, but the company said the plan is now to start it in late 2025."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[1]: China, by law, requires a location transponder on all vehicles sold on the mainland. Wonder if that was removed with the US exports... hmm?
[1]: You aren't important enough for the government to care what you do.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]: You aren't important enough for the government to care what you do.
Not to mention the cellphone in your pocket already uploads everything to Google and Facebook. Hell, even China blocks the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is on social media.
Not everyone carries their phone around everywhere.
More and more, I'm treating mine like the days of the land line, leaving it at home and being excited when I get there to listen to see who's on the answering machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is on social media.
Not everyone carries their phone around everywhere.
More and more, I'm treating mine like the days of the land line, leaving it at home and being excited when I get there to listen to see who's on the answering machine.
Yes, and unlike tracking built-in to a car, at least with a phone one has the option to leave it at home, even though most people do not exercise that option.
But I fear we are a very small minority. I don't know many people who leave their home (whether driving, walking, biking, whatever) without their phone. Personally, I love leaving the phone behind.
Re: (Score:1)
[1]: You aren't important enough for the government to care what you do.
Stop repeating that outdated canard. Ubiquitous spyware makes surveillance cheap.
NSA with mod points (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, plebians! There is no illegal citizen spying like Snowden was vilified for telling us about! Enjoy your American gladiators!
Re: (Score:3)
" However, in the real world, a F-150 Lightning can tow such a short distance that it isn't a viable vehicle"
about 120 miles towing 7000 pounds; not amazing but not terrible, considering the weight
https://insideevs.com/news/624... [insideevs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Fun fact, weight is not as important as wind resistance"
Sure but you're basically claiming hauling an extra ~10,000lbs a distance of 400 miles had effectively zero impact on fuel economy, which seems implausible.
I'm basing that on the numbers here: https://www.edmunds.com/chevro... [edmunds.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All Chinese companies are owned/managed/beholden to the Communist Chinese Party.
The Party is antagonistic to the US and is an adversary.
It is smart to not let ones adversary on your land, spying and using your resources and pumping your money back to their coffers.
Nothing xenophobic about that.