[genxer]

Ford's kinda between a rock and hard place. But, selling EV's helps them avoid paying carbon credits to Musk. But, they lose profitability because most engines they sell are dohcs, turbos that cost more and aren't better.

[Casper the friendly G]

I just heard on the news that Toyota no longer going with EV program. They smell the BS and calling out, The build process is dirty, takes too long to manufacture and will not be profitable. They will focus on Hybrids. Who next?

[Casper the friendly G]

Originally Posted by s346k

the only thing daunting about dohc is the timing setup. i think most everything else is easier to deal with vs a cam in block engine.

id like to see more displacement, less flat plane crankshaft and 4v per cylinder.

DOHC V8s are also huge and take up a lot of the engine bay. Also a lot more moving parts to break.

[BuckeyeROC]

Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G

I just heard on the news that Toyota no longer going with EV program. They smell the BS and calling out, The build process is dirty, takes too long to manufacture and will not be profitable. They will focus on Hybrids. Who next?

Wow, so they have: https://www.autonews.com/mobility-re...ys-youre-wrong


Similar to what I've been posting from Peter Zeihan.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Wow, so they have: https://www.autonews.com/mobility-re...ys-youre-wrong


Similar to what I've been posting from Peter Zeihan.

That’s been my position for quite some time and I’ve taken a lot of flak on this site for it. Follow the science. EV’s are a dead end.

[BuckeyeROC]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

That’s been my position for quite some time and I’ve taken a lot of flak on this site for it. Follow the science. EV’s are a dead end.

Just another reason OPTIONS are a good thing.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Just another reason OPTIONS are a good thing.

I agree. I look forward to seeing what Toyota comes up with. They seem to be freethinkers in contrast to some other manufacturers who're basically doing what they're told to do.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G

I just heard on the news that Toyota no longer going with EV program. They smell the BS and calling out, The build process is dirty, takes too long to manufacture and will not be profitable. They will focus on Hybrids. Who next?

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Wow, so they have: https://www.autonews.com/mobility-re...ys-youre-wrong


Similar to what I've been posting from Peter Zeihan.

Actually, they haven’t moved on from BEV. But they are trying to slow the roll, and that makes perfect sense for them. Their position (officially) is that there needs to be a broad portfolio of options, including hybrids, including BEV. What they are saying is that a 100% position of BEV is not the best answer. FWIW, I agree with them. There is and will continue to be a substantial number of people for whom BEV doesn’t work.

Toyota’s position is based on their up-until-recently global strategy of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) evolving into Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV). They have a development and price advantage in HEV similar to Tesla’s development and price advantage in BEV, so naturally they can’t be expected to walk away from that and take on Tesla head-on given Tesla’s huge advantage. The problem that is in front of them though is

• FCEV is waaaay behind BEV in development and cost
• Several geographic regions (China, EU, states representing about 30% of US sales) are pushing incentives and / or regulations for Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV)
• Top competitors who have started down the BEV path have recognized the long-term cost benefits of skateboard architectures replacing multiple ICE platforms at significantly lower cost. Some to the point of aggressively moving towards 100% BEV portfolio.

It makes sense for Toyota to continue to highlight the efficiency of HEV in reducing carbon emissions, but at the same time they are working towards increasing , not decreasing, their BEV portfolio. They will eventually have a healthy mix of HEV and BEV.

They are in the process of launching the bZ4X and the bZ5X as well as several Lexus BEV models will follow shortly after. A recent review of Toyota’s future product plan reveals 70 “electrified” products, 15 of which are BEV. The remaining 55 are a combination of HEV, PHEV, and FCEV.

[DaveC113]

IMO, a 300+ mile range EV that can do 3s 0-60s is stupid. They are status symbols for rich folks who are ashamed to buy a similar gas powered car despite the fact (ok, arguable...) that the EV is not a better environmental choice, all things considered.

What makes sense to me is smaller EVs with shorter ranges meant for daily errands, and this includes ebikes. I own such an ebike and I love it. I drive cars a lot less since buying it, but this depends on local infrastructure. I am aware many urban areas have little to no infrastructure for bikes and peds, this is unfortunate.

For longer ranges I think plug-in hybrids with shorter EV-only ranges are a far better option vs full EV. My friend owns a Volvo that fits this, it has enough range to get groceries without using the gas motor, but then for longer ranges it can use gas, and the hybrid system makes it more efficient vs a gas only vehicle. This makes sense despite the additional cost and complexity for the right user.

[BuckeyeROC]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

[*]Several geographic regions (China, EU, states representing about 30% of US sales) are pushing incentives and / or regulations for Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV)

I really hope China and the EU bail out gm next time. Both have imploding demographics and economies.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The incentives go to the buyers, not Tesla. Tesla specifically said that this was why they dropped prices.

You're correct in this specific instance, but more often the MSRP goes up with the tax credit, so keep telling yourself the tax credit goes to the consumer, when all it does is pad the OEM's margin at taxpayer expense.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

You're correct in this specific instance, but more often the MSRP goes up with the tax credit, so keep telling yourself the tax credit goes to the consumer, when all it does is pad the OEM's margin at taxpayer expense.

That was absolutely true of the Obama administration credit. There was no cap on the vehicle price, so automakers could and did just add the incentive to the car’s sticker. Now that the early manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Ford) have moved down their cost curves, and the pushback on incentives being used to give rich dudes a break they don’t need, the incentive structure has been changed to restrict the incentives to sensible people buying sensible cars. The fact that Tesla makes enough money on each car to move the price down into the incentive eligible zone creates competition to either follow suit (Ford) or not (VW). GM had already reduced prices on Bolt EV and Bolt EUV so they haven’t had to react. Yet. Hummer EV was never in the hunt. It’s way beyond the $80k limit, so no incentives.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G

DOHC V8s are also huge and take up a lot of the engine bay. Also a lot more moving parts to break.

Having more moving parts isn’t a bad thing. I see more issues with dropped valves and lifter failures with pushrod V8’s than I do with DOHC v8’s. My theory is because there’s more moving parts, the wear and tear is being more evenly distributed among a bunch of smaller parts versus less but larger parts in a push rod v8. Don’t believe me? Google “valve drop”, “lifter failure” with ford attached to your search than do the same with Chevy/dodge and I bet you’ll see a lot more issues come up with the other too versus ford. I’m a push rod guy by the way but I 100% believe DOHC engines to be more reliable. At least in my experience I have seen significantly less failures with them than I do with push rod failures.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Capricio

You're correct in this specific instance, but more often the MSRP goes up with the tax credit, so keep telling yourself the tax credit goes to the consumer, when all it does is pad the OEM's margin at taxpayer expense.

As an economist I completely agree with this statement.