Stellantis CEO Gets Surprisingly Candid about Electrification

[silvrsvt]

Not Ford related, but figured I'd share it here since it deals with the industry going to BEVs and the challenges with it.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a43143672/stellantis-ceo-carlos-tavares-on-electrification-and-evs/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_aut&utm_medium=email&date=030223&utm_campaign=nl30708526&user_email=7b389c2f374fcffffe4f64d9c0f0bafaca6dc835c57d84a273199feaedea3782&GID=7b389c2f374fcffffe4f64d9c0f0bafaca6dc835c57d84a273199feaedea3782&utm_term=AAA -- High Minus Dormant and 90 Day Non Openers

 

On hybrids versus battery EVs: “The regulatory framework is clear: You sell EVs or you die. But if we forget about that frame for a few seconds, if we really want to protect the planet, consider this: The average age of the car park is 12 years. If you took all the cars that are 15 years or older and replaced them with the equivalent modern car—pickup, sedan, what have you—the result would be a very fast 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide, on average. These cars can be an affordable proposition, with mild hybrid technology, and sales would be very high. There would be big volume because you’ve protected affordability. If we were pragmatic, we could do that plan.”

 

[tarheels23]

I LUV my C-Max but my next new car will be BEV with solar panels and use both to power my home

[GearheadGrrrl]

The Stelantis CEO makes a good point- Most trips are under 50 miles thus requiring only 20% of the 250 or more mile battery capacity common in BEVs. Given the shortage of battery materials PHEVs could allow 5 times as many electric cars to be built producing nearly 5 times as much reduction in GHG as full BEVs. Besides a more rapid reduction in GHG pollution, BEVs will be adopted much more quickly as buyers will be reassured that the IC engine in a PHEV will get them there when a BEV wouldn't.

[silvrsvt]

30 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The Stelantis CEO makes a good point- Most trips are under 50 miles thus requiring only 20% of the 250 or more mile battery capacity common in BEVs. Given the shortage of battery materials PHEVs could allow 5 times as many electric cars to be built producing nearly 5 times as much reduction in GHG as full BEVs. Besides a more rapid reduction in GHG pollution, BEVs will be adopted much more quickly as buyers will be reassured that the IC engine in a PHEV will get them there when a BEV wouldn't.

 

The real issue is that it wouldn't, all your doing is kicking the ball down the road because your not making a harsh cutover. All it does is allow manufactures to just keep what they are doing for longer. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Harsh cutovers are expensive and leave a lot of people stranded- A new BEV is a multi billion dollar investment and for many people charging isn't readily available if they can even afford a new vehicle. Forcing a hard cutover also creates a backlash that will kill electrification entirely- Forcing people into BEVs will actually slow adoption.

[silvrsvt]

35 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Harsh cutovers are expensive and leave a lot of people stranded- A new BEV is a multi billion dollar investment and for many people charging isn't readily available if they can even afford a new vehicle. Forcing a hard cutover also creates a backlash that will kill electrification entirely- Forcing people into BEVs will actually slow adoption.

 

The point is that the Harsh cutover is in 12 years in the EU and some states in the United States...that is basically about 2-3 more complete product development cycles in that time frame. I think by that time at least say 60-80% of "issues" should be resolved, if not more

 

Cars aren't getting any cheaper these days...you might be able to get a Maverick for $22K, but if you have no or little down payment and with interest rates, its not pretty. Used cars won't get much cheaper because the supply is lower-people keeping cars longer and less cars getting dumped into rental fleets like they where 30 years ago either. 

That is why I keep harping on someone needs to make a small CUV that costs about 30-40K that is  BEV and has a decent range and make money at the same time..that is the sweet spot of the market IMO. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Those "harsh cutovers" are already eroding- Just saw on Bloomberg that Germany wants some exceptions to the EC's 2035 cutover. California has already mandated EVs before and had to back down, and as 2035 or whatever the cutover date is approaches there will be a flurry of exceptions and outright postponements of the "harsh cutovers".

[silvrsvt]

35 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Those "harsh cutovers" are already eroding- Just saw on Bloomberg that Germany wants some exceptions to the EC's 2035 cutover. California has already mandated EVs before and had to back down, and as 2035 or whatever the cutover date is approaches there will be a flurry of exceptions and outright postponements of the "harsh cutovers".

 

The German thing is directly coming from their auto industry-Porsche is pushing alternative fuels, so of course they want an exemption. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

I know, in Germany the auto industry and government tend to move in lockstep.

[akirby]

Can we not rehash this again?

[Rick73]

What seems new here is Tavares openly questioning government policy for being inefficient, and describing what he considers a better solution.  It’s noteworthy that he doesn’t seem to fear wrath from environmental extremist.  Whether he’s correct or not is not as important as being able to express dissenting opinions.

[rperez817]

47 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What seems new here is Tavares openly questioning government policy

 

Tavares has a long history (at least 40 years) of openly questioning government policy. He railed against certain policies when he worked for Renault, and sometimes even criticized his buddy José Sócrates, former Prime Minister of Tavares' home country of Portugal.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

What seems new here is Tavares openly questioning government policy for being inefficient, and describing what he considers a better solution

 

Keep in mind auto companies aren't altruistic...they have shareholders that want profit from them. Keeping the status quote would be in their best interests since expenses would be less.

 

Keeping hybrids around for 20 plus years would be pretty much the same deal as using your house as an ATM machine and cashing out equity you have in it, if your goal is to own your own house....you'll almost never get to that point. All your doing is kicking the problem down the road-those hybrids on the road now will be still on the road in 15 years from now with a much smaller reduction in emissions and gasoline usage. 

 

Companies had to be prodded and made to do things that they should have been doing by government regulation for over 70 years now. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Keeping hybrids around for 20 plus years would be pretty much the same deal as using your house as an ATM machine and cashing out equity you have in it, if your goal is to own your own house....you'll almost never get to that point. All you’re doing is kicking the problem down the road-those hybrids on the road now will be still on the road in 15 years from now with a much smaller reduction in emissions and gasoline usage. 

The flaw in that theory is that every car buyer will be able to afford and operate a BEV within the next 10 - 15 years and I highly doubt we’ll be close to that.  In the meantime you could be saving a lot of fuel with new hybrids that are both affordable and available now with no restrictions.  It’s not going to slow down BEV development.  What happens in 15 years if BEVs are only 50% of the market and we’ve wasted 15 years of gains from more efficient hybrids?

 

Why can’t we look at all options and see which ones contribute the most reductions using realistic adoption rates that take into account realistic technology and infrastructure limitations?  Why not a two prong approach to improve ICE as much as possible while also transitioning to BEVs?  Saying that takes money away from BEVs and delays BEV adoption is just rationalization.

[GearheadGrrrl]

And if buyers would prefer a PHEV they're unlikely to buy an EV, and more likely to buy an IC instead.

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Companies had to be prodded and made to do things that they should have been doing by government regulation for over 70 years now. 

 

Correct. In the context of Tavares' statement "The regulatory framework is clear: You sell EVs or you die", the legacy automakers are directly responsible for that. Had those companies taken BEV seriously 25 years ago, maybe governments could have been more flexible with their policies. But nowadays the only appropriate regulatory framework is "you sell EVs or you die", including bans on the production and sale of new ICE vehicles.

 

The global automotive industry in general has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted to police itself.

[silvrsvt]

57 minutes ago, akirby said:

The flaw in that theory is that every car buyer will be able to afford and operate a BEV within the next 10 - 15 years and I highly doubt we’ll be close to that.  In the meantime you could be saving a lot of fuel with new hybrids that are both affordable and available now with no restrictions.  It’s not going to slow down BEV development.  What happens in 15 years if BEVs are only 50% of the market and we’ve wasted 15 years of gains from more efficient hybrids?

 

There are restrictions-HEVs use the same battery packs as BEVs, so manufactures are going to use their batteries in products with the highest profit margins. Ford will want to build more Lightings than Maverick HEVs. Till battery production expands, that is going to be the case.

 

Outside of the Maverick and Escape HEVs, other Ford products are just using hybrid as a power adder...it really doesn't save much, if anything in the Explorer or F-150 MPG wise-it works out to roughly a difference of $300 a year or .5 ton in Co2 emissions vs the most fuel efficient ICE options for both products. 

 

From his comments, it sounds like he wants a government cash for clunkers plan replacing any car that is say less than 5-10 years old and replacing it with a hybrid. I don't think there is enough battery production in the world to switch every single ICE to a HEV in the next few years.

 

 

 

 

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

It’s not going to slow down BEV development.

 

That's an incorrect assumption. Not only do hybrids dilute automakers' investments in BEV, but nowadays hybrids including PHEV are perpetuating ICE and the use of petroleum fuels much more than acting as a bridge to 100% electric vehicles.

 

An executive at another Ford competitor, GM President Mark Reuss, said it best.

If I had a dollar more to invest, would I spend it on a hybrid? Or would I spend it on the answer that we all know is going to happen, and get there faster and better than anybody else?

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

There are restrictions-HEVs use the same battery packs as BEVs, so manufactures are going to use their batteries in products with the highest profit margins. Ford will want to build more Lightings than Maverick HEVs. Till battery production expands, that is going to be the case.

 

Outside of the Maverick and Escape HEVs, other Ford products are just using hybrid as a power adder...it really doesn't save much, if anything in the Explorer or F-150 MPG wise-it works out to roughly a difference of $300 a year or .5 ton in Co2 emissions vs the most fuel efficient ICE options for both products. 

 

From his comments, it sounds like he wants a government cash for clunkers plan replacing any car that is say less than 5-10 years old and replacing it with a hybrid. I don't think there is enough battery production in the world to switch every single ICE to a HEV in the next few years.

 

I’m just asking the question which is better for emissions.  You’re just repeating that BEVs are better.

 

My biggest complaint is we aren’t looking at all the options on the table using realistic forecasts with the goal of reducing emissions.  We’re just jumping right to 100% BEVs   What if we can only get to 50% BEVs in 15 years - what does that look like with and without hybrids?  If you do t at least do the math you’ll never know the answer.  The real answer is some want BEVs no matter what and are unwilling to consider options because the goal isn’t reduced emissions it’s 100% BEVs.  We lost sight of the trees in the forest.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Tavares has a long history (at least 40 years) of openly questioning government policy. He railed against certain policies when he worked for Renault, and sometimes even criticized his buddy José Sócrates, former Prime Minister of Tavares' home country of Portugal.

That makes him outspoken, not wrong.

[rmc523]

39 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

That's an incorrect assumption. Not only do hybrids dilute automakers' investments in BEV, but nowadays hybrids including PHEV are perpetuating ICE and the use of petroleum fuels much more than acting as a bridge to 100% electric vehicles.

 

An executive at another Ford competitor, GM President Mark Reuss, said it best.

 

 

 

That's not a fair comparison.  You're using a quote from a GM exec - the company that has utterly failed with every attempt at a hybrid model.

 

Toyota has had massive success with hybrids, as has Ford (which has constrained itself there), and others to lesser extents.

 

Obviously the exec from the company that doesn't have a viable existing hybrid program is going to say why would I invest in hybrids now.

[akirby]

Here is an analogy I’ve lived with through my entire IT career and it’s happening as we speak.

 

App needs updates but instead of doing incremental upgrades they decide to go all in on a brand new platform with all the gee whiz features and it will only take 6 months.  4 months in they extend the schedule to 1 yr due to unexpected issues.  At 1 yr they find out the new platform won’t scale as expected and wait for the mfr to come up with a solution.  Solution involves hardware and software changes.  We’re now at 18 months and no end in sight.

 

Meanwhile the old system has had no updates in 18 months.  The hardware is old and causing repeated outages.  You’ve spent $4m with nothing to show for it.

 

Thats what we’re doing by ignoring hybrids as an interim upgrade while BEVs and infrastructure mature.   Forcing those who can’t go BEV to keep buying ICE or keeping their really old really dirty vehicles.

[akirby]

49 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

An executive at another Ford competitor, GM President Mark Reuss, said it best.

Also said by GM executives:

 

Let’s have 12 different brands it will be great for business.

Pontiac Aztec - what a beauty!

Everyone will want these rebadged Aussie cars!

Lets double down on high priced luxury sedans while the sedan market is falling like a rock.

Avalanche, HHR, Solstice………nuff said.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

All your doing is kicking the problem down the road-those hybrids on the road now will be still on the road in 15 years from now with a much smaller reduction in emissions and gasoline usage. 

Tavares’ point is valid and correct if viewed objectively, or pragmatic if you prefer.  Remember that just like investing for retirement, the earlier you start, the more you accomplish long-term.  The same goes for CO2 reduction.  Reductions over the next five years will have more value than the five years after that, or in 10 or 15 years, etc.

 

His point is that an affordable hybrid option today is far better than an expensive BEV that if not affordable, will lead buyer to purchase a 100% ICE instead, which will produce more CO2 in long run.  He seems more focused on real CO2 reduction, where others only care about replacing ICE with BEV regardless of whether it solves anything.

 

Stepping back and looking at the big picture like Tavares appears to be doing is beneficial, particularly if it leads to frank discussions.  We can still disagree with him, but let’s at least consider his point.  If nothing else, he has access to a lot more information than we do.

 

 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

The global automotive industry in general has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted to police itself.

In fairness, that could also apply to BEV transition.  As I mentioned in other thread, when GM creates a 9,000-pound Hummer with 200 kWh of battery that maybe 1% of population can afford, and also produces tremendous quantities of CO2, the message they are sending is that they don’t care about the environment as much as other goals.  Tavares’ point of view seems more honest than GM’s in my opinion.