[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

It drove up the cost of trucks and SUVs to pay for the credits... where do you suppose the OEMs got the money to pay for them? It's a pretty short line to ICE consumer.

Unless you believe that EVs cost less than ICE this is still a non-argument. If the price of ICE goes up but EV is still more expensive, what are truck and SUV customers gonna buy? The more expensive EV?

[silversleeper]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I just happen to be looking at some of our data for a discussion I’m involved in tomorrow. One of the topics is Reason for Purchase for EV / Hybrid.

For Tesla buyers, government tax incentives is #5 with only 25% saying it was a consideration (they can list more than one). Top consideration was fuel savings at 67%.

For all other EV and Hybrid buyers government tax incentives is #3 at 10%. Top consideration is fuel savings at 20%.

For EV and Hybrid intenders (don’t have, but likely to buy) government tax incentives is #4 at 17%. Top consideration is fuel savings at 57%.

This is from a survey of 7,500 respondents.

FWIW - Reasons for not purchasing are (in order)

1. Too expensive
2. Lack of charging availability
3. Time required to charge
4. Limited charging range
5. Unfamiliar with technology

I don't know how old this 7500 respondents is from. I'd say more-so in the past Tesla was an exclusive Brand. People wanted to show off in their expensive Tesla. They have kept dropping prices and with tax rebates they are more affordable.
As a new buyer I'd say the top things for me were
Incentives, Acceleration, fuel prices (California has high premium fuel prices which go even higher at times!) Can refill at my garage
Secondary no oil changes and few other maint like brake and air filter changes. My Benz dealer want's to scalp you so they call it an A or B service to obfuscate their $500 oil and filter change charges.
The lows aren't as prominent now with charging stations all over and this technology been around a while with fewish reliability problems excepting the occasional battery fires.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by silversleeper

I don't know how old this 7500 respondents is from. I'd say more-so in the past Tesla was an exclusive Brand. People wanted to show off in their expensive Tesla. They have kept dropping prices and with tax rebates they are more affordable.
As a new buyer I'd say the top things for me were
Incentives, Acceleration, fuel prices (California has high premium fuel prices which go even higher at times!) Can refill at my garage
Secondary no oil changes and few other maint like brake and air filter changes. My Benz dealer want's to scalp you so they call it an A or B service to obfuscate their $500 oil and filter change charges.
The lows aren't as prominent now with charging stations all over and this technology been around a while with fewish reliability problems excepting the occasional battery fires.

I think it was May of this year.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Fun fact if anyone is interested. One of my colleagues will be the featured guest on Autoline After Hours this afternoon at 3:00 Eastern. In case you wanna yell at someone other than me the show can be accessed at Autoline.tv or through their YouTube channel. Show is hosted by John McElroy, the dean of automotive broadcasting. Today’s topic is the uneven growth of the EV market.

Cool drinking game…take a shot every time he says “lumpy”.

Go to 55:45 where Vasilash asks, "If the stick of regulation goes away, and the carrot of tax incentives goes away, what happens to that (EV) market? (excluding Tesla)"

To which McElroy replies, "Oh no, they won't do well. If you yank the rug out from under them completely you are going to financially cripple them. You could literally drive them out of business"

So your guys are admitting that this whole EV thing (except Tesla) is being dictated and propped up by the government. THAT is what I and many others here don't like.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Go to 55:45 where Vasilash asks, "If the stick of regulation goes away, and the carrot of tax incentives goes away, what happens to that (EV) market? (excluding Tesla)"

To which McElroy replies, "Oh no, they won't do well. If you yank the rug out from under them completely you are going to financially cripple them. You could literally drive them out of business"

So your guys are admitting that this whole EV thing (except Tesla) is being dictated and propped up by the government. THAT is what I and many others here don't like.

That might be John’s opinion. Michael didn’t answer the question because he was gone from the broadcast by then. If he had he would probably have said something to the effect of

• Tesla would be just fine
• The major automakers, particularly the more global automakers (BMW, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen Group, Hyundai Kia Group, others) would be just fine. They were already on the path to EV before any US regulatory push for 2027. And since they all build product for larger markets than just the US, their portfolios will reflect that.
• General Motors would probably have to reassess their portfolio and would likely extend some form of electrically assisted ICE in their large truck / SUV portfolio.
• The companies that would most be at risk would be Rivian, Lucid, Nio and similar. And except for Rivian, they would continue to exist, just maybe not with sales in the US.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Tesla selling credits has zippo to do with consumers deciding whether or not to buy an EV over an ICE. It does have a lot to do with how Tesla managed to stay alive as a company despite having to sell product below cost for a number of years. Chalk that up to good ol’ American ingenuity.

I'd call that "graft" and "government meddling", but okay, ingenuity, sure...

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That might be John’s opinion. Michael didn’t answer the question because he was gone from the broadcast by then. If he had he would probably have said something to the effect of

• Tesla would be just fine
• The major automakers, particularly the more global automakers (BMW, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen Group, Hyundai Kia Group, others) would be just fine. They were already on the path to EV before any US regulatory push for 2027. And since they all build product for larger markets than just the US, their portfolios will reflect that.
• General Motors would probably have to reassess their portfolio and would likely extend some form of electrically assisted ICE in their large truck / SUV portfolio.
• The companies that would most be at risk would be Rivian, Lucid, Nio and similar. And except for Rivian, they would continue to exist, just maybe not with sales in the US.

Michael wasn't there, he left after 30 minutes.

The real point is not who would or wouldn't survive, but that there IS a carrot and a stick which distorts the market.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Michael wasn't there, he left after 30 minutes.

The real point is not who would or wouldn't survive, but that there IS a carrot and a stick which distorts the market.

I would have to agree that many see it that way. What I keep trying to say is that manufacturer intent precedes the EPA regulation that is currently on the table and it precedes the IRA treatment of EVs. Both measures are an attempt to either “supercharge” the effort (EPA) or to make certain that US labor gets a slice of the pie (IRA). Now it is turning out that the EPA 2027 rule making is more onerous than originally expected and has an ulterior motive of pushing EV transition further and faster by making ICE capability to comply more and more difficult. Some of this is because EVs have proven to be capable in pretty much all aspects of automobile use. But at the end of the day, the direction was already set before the rule making was in place.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I would have to agree that many see it that way. What I keep trying to say is that manufacturer intent precedes the EPA regulation that is currently on the table and it precedes the IRA treatment of EVs. Both measures are an attempt to either “supercharge” the effort (EPA) or to make certain that US labor gets a slice of the pie (IRA). Now it is turning out that the EPA 2027 rule making is more onerous than originally expected and has an ulterior motive of pushing EV transition further and faster by making ICE capability to comply more and more difficult. Some of this is because EVs have proven to be capable in pretty much all aspects of automobile use. But at the end of the day, the direction was already set before the rule making was in place.

So serious question. I think we all see the push towards EV however we want to see it, but what are the auto makers going to do if the market simply resists?

[Capricio]

So, it's okay to regulate ICE out of existance through policy because "EVs were going to take over anyways" even though consumer demand never drove EV sales and forcing consumers into EVs is proof they really want them, or something.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So serious question. I think we all see the push towards EV however we want to see it, but what are the auto makers going to do if the market simply resists?

"They" can resist all they want. As time progresses, less choices will be available until none are available.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So serious question. I think we all see the push towards EV however we want to see it, but what are the auto makers going to do if the market simply resists?

What happens when the government tries to drive something so hard in face of constrained resources, limited demand, and regulatory insanity? you get something like this:

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So serious question. I think we all see the push towards EV however we want to see it, but what are the auto makers going to do if the market simply resists?

That’s very hypothetical and therefore something that I can’t really speculate on. ICE has pretty much reached is technical limits in terms of emissions control capability and regulations are not going to go away and they are not going to remain stagnant. So automakers have to decide if they are going to invest $$B into adding emissions content and systems that they can’t recover cost through price or invest in the technology that performs better, has zero emissions, and people have shown a willingness to pay for. To answer your question would be to assume that all those factors go away. They won’t. They might bend and extend the life of ICE in certain classes of vehicles, but they aren’t going to break.

Originally Posted by Capricio

So, it's okay to regulate ICE out of existance through policy because "EVs were going to take over anyways" even though consumer demand never drove EV sales and forcing consumers into EVs is proof they really want them, or something.

Not my place to say what is okay or not okay. It’s only my place to study what is actually happening and forming positions / scenarios as to what is most likely to next happen.

To say that consumer demand never drove EV sales is to totally ignore the fact that during Tesla’s double and triple digit growth years nobody forced anybody to buy a Tesla. Yet, here they are, the number 1 selling vehicle in the world and the 4th best selling brand in the US.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

"They" can resist all they want. As time progresses, less choices will be available until none are available.

Pretty much this. We’re seeing it already. Camaro, Challenger, and Charger are the poster children. When OEMs only have so much capital to feed product program mouths, some are going to starve no matter how much love there is for them.

We are starting to see entire classes of vehicles disappear. Compact sedans? Large sedans? Very soon mid-sized sedans? Things that are harder to electrify will hang on longer (pickups) but eventually automakers will figure out how to make highly functional affordable EV pickups. Today it’s highly functional, affordable, EV…pick two.

Going forward there will be ICE choices available. Just fewer of them.