"There's only one customer for electric vehicles" - Article link

[Tooney]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/there-s-only-one-customer-for-electric-vehicles/ar-AA1176h7

" ...you’ll have the results from a recent study by intuit.ive. Given that most people will adopt a more progressive posture to a surveyor than they will behind closed doors, the percentage of buyers who will really consider an EV for their next vehicle is probably less than 22%.
…
Yet the manufacturers are “all-in” on EVs. I’ve been told privately by several senior "Big Three" engineers that future development of “ICE,” or gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, has been all but canceled. Meanwhile, brands like Cadillac are announcing an EV transition in the next five or 10 years. In Cadillac’s case, that move has been so unpopular with the dealers that 1 in 5 is planning to take a buyout and close its doors.

It’s axiomatic in this business that the dealers understand the buyers much better than the automakers do. So why would GM, Ford, and Stellantis commit to a future course of action that their own partners, who are keenly aware of what will sell in the real world, can’t abide?
…
The federal government has immense power to punish automakers, which at any given moment are mired in astoundingly deep and complex interactions and negotiations with a slew of alphabet agencies regarding everything from the way automotive emissions are tested to whether or not it’s allowable to dodge a long-standing import tax for commercial vans built overseas by bringing them from Turkey with seats installed, removing those seats, selling the vans without the seats, then shipping the removed seats back to Turkey for installation in another van. (Yes, that really happens.)
…
When the automakers look into their crystal balls, they see a nightmare future of soaring fuel prices, a sagging economy, and intense government regulation. There’s going to be another bailout at some point. And it is widely believed that the terms of the bailout will be hugely influenced by how the automakers behave today.
…
Unlike the talking heads in the media, the automakers know that mass production of electric vehicles within seven years will be somewhere between a disaster and a catastrophe. The raw materials are in short supply and largely controlled by China. The technology isn’t advancing as rapidly as was hoped, particularly with regard to batteries. And the charging infrastructure won’t be remotely prepared for the onslaught of 7 million or 8 million new EVs a year.
…
Consequently, the Big Three companies, along with the foreign automakers who do significant business here, are moving their engineering and production capacity to EVs while also pressuring the administration to back their play with both legal and financial incentives. At the same time, they are preparing to make their case for a full federal bailout when the EV rollout fails and customers demand the “old” cars en masse. "

Sponsored

 

[Archimedes]

The slower the adoption of EVs, the better. I want to continue to be one of the quickest vehicles on the road for as long as possible. The advantage of being able to make any pass or drop any car in a merge is something that I hope persists for many years to come. When people ask me if I like my EV, I always tell them the truth. I think it's terrific, but it's not really a good solution for most people...

 

[whan]

I think the opinion article is overly negative on EVs and takes truths too far. I do believe that we will eventually transition to majority EVs at some point in the future, as if production and charging infrastructure is sorted, they fit for most people's needs. The question of when is the big one - for example, I think California's recently passed laws to have 100% EVs by 2035 is far too aggressive and optimistic, and will be rolled back as the time passes. I'm surprised they even put 100%, as I do believe there will always be a need for ICE vehicles in the forseeable future. Something like a 60-80% target would have been a much more realistic goal

 

[WuffvonTrips]

The EU has mandated 100% of new car sales should be EV by 2035. Would European manufacturers produce ICE cars for other markets?

 

[JimBob]

Fixed

The slower faster the adoption of EVs, the better. I want to continue to be one of the quickest vehicles on the road and be free of heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory disease for as long as possible The advantage of being able to make any pass or drop any car in a merge be alive is something that I hope persists for many years to come. When people ask me if I like my EV, I always tell them the truth. I think it's terrific, but as it's not really a good solution for most people to dump their shit on someone else...

 

[Loltheinternet]

I'm not surprised that dealers don't like EVs. They require less maintenance, which is their real money maker.

I also think Tesla has proven that a direct to consumer approach is better for both parties in a vehicle purchase transaction as well.

 

[Archimedes]

Yeah, conversion to EVs aren’t gonna save the planet. Sadly.

 

[KensingtonPark]

I'm not surprised that dealers don't like EVs. They require less maintenance, which is their real money maker.

I'm not so sure of that, at least in the short- to medium-term. My Porsche dealer has been pretty busy with Taycans for the last few years. To be clear, I love my Taycan!

I also think Tesla has proven that a direct to consumer approach is better for both parties in a vehicle purchase transaction as well.

I think they have proven that it can be done, but since they have not made great money ex-carbon credits per vehicle, it's kind of hard to say (yet) that it's clearly "better."

 

[Mike in CA]

Opinions are like you-know-whats, everybody's got one. I put no more stock in the overly negative opinion from the author of that piece than anyone else. Unsurprising to me that it surfaced in the Washington Examiner. Just MY opinion.

 

[Windpower]

The EU has mandated 100% of new car sales should be EV by 2035.

And California (the largest automobile market in the US) is going to do the same.
The whole thing reminds me of the introduction of the car in the early 1900's, which replaced the horse and buggy. I read Alfred Sloan's book "My Years at General Motors" where he said that early on, most people didn't want a stinky, unreliable mode of transportation based on internal combustion engine. It took almost 15 years for ICE cars to be built on an assembly line by Henry Ford. Assembly line production brought the ICE car prices down and, while still stinky and unreliable, sales started to take off.
I think the automobile manufactures see the writing on the wall (they simply need to look at the success of Tesla) and want to get ahead of the EV adoption curve, even if the adoption rate is not quite there yet.
In general, EVs are better than ICE: they are faster, they are less expensive to run day to day, they are quieter and they are less 'stinky'. But today EVs cost more and have limited range. This is not unlike the situation 120 years ago with the horse and buggy versus the internal combustion engine: ICE cars were better than the horse and buggy but had limitations which took some number of years to over come.
As for me, once I had my first EV (I'm on my third) I would never go back to ICE. I really like charging my car at home, I love the speed and quiet, and for someone who drives 14,000 miles per year, EV is the perfect solution to my transportation needs.
10 years from now, its possible that most consumers will ONLY want an EV.

 

[RingoDingo]

It's about technology and infrastructure. Yes, today they don't want an EV... because they're worried about range and charging times, etc. Solve those problems (and they will be solved... with time and scale) and EVs are a no-brainer because they are objectively superior and more efficient forms of A to B transportation, infrastructure aside. The car companies aren't dumb, but op-eds from the Washington Examiner may be.

 

[RingoDingo]

Yeah, conversion to EVs aren’t gonna save the planet. Sadly.

They may slow down its rapid destruction, though. No sense in throwing out the good because it's not perfect.

 

[Brucel]

They may slow down its rapid destruction, though. No sense in throwing out the good because it's not perfect.

Agree. Pretty easy to dismiss a single component of an overall strategy. No single thing is going to save the planet but a lot of things just might. I think the "fixed" version is nicely done.

 

[RingoDingo]

Agree. Pretty easy to dismiss a single component of an overall strategy. No single thing is going to save the planet but a lot of things just might. I think the "fixed" version is nicely done.

Articles like this allow people who don't want to think very hard to sort of resign themselves that there's not much they can do... oh well... even though it's hotter than hell outside and there's wildfires and hurricanes everywhere and I've got this cognitive dissonance in my brain because I'm realizing I've probably been lied to by politicians and leaders and the oil lobby and things are looking dire and it's partially my fault for not taking it seriously earlier, there's not much i can to so might as well buy another F-250 and roll some coal. And the oil and gas lobby and the Koch family chortle with joy while the world burns.

 

[Tooney]

The car companies aren't dumb, but op-eds from the Washington Examiner may be.

Unless the perspectives come from an authoritative, informed, well-respected source like the Washington Post, they obviously lack merit.

Sponsored