Stellantis CEO Gets Surprisingly Candid about Electrification

[tarheels23]

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-looking-ways-boost-gas-powered-f-150-production-2023-03-03/

 

Ford began increasing production of the Mustang Mach-E this week and plans to nearly double its hourly production and bring its annual manufacturing run rate to a targeted 210,000 units by the end of 2023.

[Rangers09]

6 hours 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.

 

 

 

Hybrids and PHEV's are also providing the profits, along with the other ICE vehicles that are financing your BEV's.

 

The choice of vehicle should be based on customer needs. Based on our needs, a BEV won't work, so if we didn't have a PHEV available, we would be purchasing another purely ICE vehicle. Going to be many years before a BEV meets our needs, so isn't it better to save a little pollution than none.

[Rick73]

19 hours 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.

I won’t disagree at a technical level again because we are just beating a dead horse, but I am curious whether you ever view solution(s) in terms of “perfect is the enemy of good”?  Is digging in on perfection beneficial overall?

 

Clinton used that phrase often (I believe based on a French proverb) which I didn’t care for or appreciate at the time.  However, I now wonder if it doesn’t apply well to electrification.  Long-term BEVs powered by zero-carbon electricity may be the perfect solution, but most reasonable people, including Carlos Tavares, accept that zero-carbon electricity is decades in the future.  In the mean time, fuel efficient hybrids powered by petroleum fuels can reduce CO2 as much, or nearly as much, as BEVs powered with carbon-producing electricity.  Isn’t a good solution better for now given how simple and fast it can be implemented, rather than limit progress by only pursuing perfection which may or may not happen for decades — depending on how long it takes to decarbonize electricity production?

 

Tavares was quoted as saying 50% reduction is possible, which seems ambitious yet realistic when replacing older ICE with newer HEVs.  I can personally cut fuel consumption by more than half with minor compromises, and expect many others can also.  So, should we dismiss Tavares’ point on hybrids and only move forward with BEVs?  Is that what you actually prefer?  On further thought, his opinion is similar to Mr Toyoda’s, which you’ve been critical of, so I should already know your answer. 

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I won’t disagree at a technical level again because we are just beating a dead horse, but I am curious whether you ever view solution(s) in terms of “perfect is the enemy of good”?  Is digging in on perfection beneficial overall?

 

The issue is realistically, can any manufacture, right now, make NOTHING but HEV products without selling any purely ICE products and not have any impact of production BEV products that are in their lineup? Or having to spend development $$ on new HEV powertrains that would need to be developed to meet this goal? 

 

Realistically, using Ford as an example-they've already plotted out how they are intending on doing this-new BEV products will be replacing/supplementing current ICE programs-First the Explorer then the Escape/Bronco Sport. The Ranger and Bronco won't be BEVs till 2030 or so. The Maverick is staying ICE/Hybrid till 2032 I think.  Ford has said zero about the Bronco or Ranger getting a HEV powertrain anytime soon, and with the BEV version coming in 6-7 years, does it actually make any sense to spend money on putting a 2.3L Powerboost in that won't really improve MPG or CO2 emissions, just for a 5-7 year time frame?

 

As for the affordability issues-that will be improved as battery/manufacturing prices shrink...but yet people have no problem spending an average of $50K on a car today or spending an extra $10K on a Maverick Hybrid that costs $20K. 

 

Spending money on new ICE or HEVs is stupid at this moment-say a new program starts this year for an I6-will Ford actually be able to make money off it by 2030, since all the programs outside of the ICE F-150 will offer an BEV by then? Ford would be better just sticking with what it has now and just ride it out till it dies.

 

The CAFE requirements are getting more stringent-its supposed to go up to 26% from today come 2026...I'm sure that the 2029 regulations will be even more stringent and require even more BEVs to be able to make it. So that further crimps whatever savings HEVs can make. 

Once again it boils down to nuances-lots of things can change in the next 12 years. I don't think the affordability issue will be as big of a deal as it is today. Just as an example, we will have 20 times the amount of battery production in the USA in 2030 then we had in 2021.

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1271-january-2-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-manufacturing-capacity#:~:text=A wave of new planned,production between 2025 and 2030.

There will be enough battery production in the USA alone in 2030 to support producing 10-13 million autos a year. I think the average sales are anywhere between 9-17 million a year depending on the economy etc. 

[akirby]

You keep saying $50k on average but that means there are millions of $25k vehicles to offset all the $75k and up trucks, SUVS and luxury vehicles.  

[silvrsvt]

36 minutes ago, akirby said:

You keep saying $50k on average but that means there are millions of $25k vehicles to offset all the $75k and up trucks, SUVS and luxury vehicles.  

[akirby]

And what does that mean?

[twintornados]

On 3/2/2023 at 11:27 AM, silvrsvt said:

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

 

Quote

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.”

 

 

 

Translation - we don't have a good supplier of batteries

[akirby]

My point is this:

 

Local Honda dealer - 113 new vehicles.  41 under $30k.

Local Hyundai dealer - 306 new vehicles - 92 under $30k

A lot more are between $30k and $35k.  The low end of the market is still quite large and won’t be served by BEVs for quite some time.  The $50k avg is skewed by so many high priced trucks and SUVs and luxury vehicles.  

[Harley Lover]

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Realistically, using Ford as an example-they've already plotted out how they are intending on doing this-new BEV products will be replacing/supplementing current ICE programs

 

This is not Ford's plan (at least not the "replacing" part). Farley implied as much in his 'fireside chat'.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

My point is this:

 

Local Honda dealer - 113 new vehicles.  41 under $30k.

Local Hyundai dealer - 306 new vehicles - 92 under $30k

A lot more are between $30k and $35k.  The low end of the market is still quite large and won’t be served by BEVs for quite some time.  The $50k avg is skewed by so many high priced trucks and SUVs and luxury vehicles.  

That appears correct when electric brands like Tesla, Rivian, and Polestar are compared against Mazda, Honda, Nissan, etc.  Obviously apples-to-oranges when comparing directly because these are luxury vehicles, but raises the question of whether they are luxury mainly because of high price, or because of non-powertrain content differences?  I don’t know.  Regardless, a buyer with limited budget can purchase an average Mazda or Honda for almost half the cost of an average Tesla or other electric brand.  There are some cheap electric cars, but do we know to what degree they are subsidized by ICE profits?

 

For years Musk has promised an entry-level affordable Model 2 (with other name) for North America but it keeps getting delayed.  It appears much easier to absorb the higher battery and electrification cost at the higher MSRP, whether vehicle is truly a luxury vehicle or not.

 

Tavares’ point made over years is that electrification adversely affects the working class disproportionally.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

This is not Ford's plan (at least not the "replacing" part). Farley implied as much in his 'fireside chat'.

 

What is actually said and what is actually done is two different things-suppliers are showing that several ICE products are scheduled to be built past 2030 with a BEV alterative in production also.

 

I'm sure that will change on how well BEVs are accepted in the market and the ICE will go away as quick as possible

 

[Trader 10]

On 3/4/2023 at 5:24 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue is realistically, can any manufacture, right now, make NOTHING but HEV products without selling any purely ICE products and not have any impact of production BEV products that are in their lineup? Or having to spend development $$ on new HEV powertrains that would need to be developed to meet this goal? 

 

Realistically, using Ford as an example-they've already plotted out how they are intending on doing this-new BEV products will be replacing/supplementing current ICE programs-First the Explorer then the Escape/Bronco Sport. The Ranger and Bronco won't be BEVs till 2030 or so. The Maverick is staying ICE/Hybrid till 2032 I think.  Ford has said zero about the Bronco or Ranger getting a HEV powertrain anytime soon, and with the BEV version coming in 6-7 years, does it actually make any sense to spend money on putting a 2.3L Powerboost in that won't really improve MPG or CO2 emissions, just for a 5-7 year time frame?

 

As for the affordability issues-that will be improved as battery/manufacturing prices shrink...but yet people have no problem spending an average of $50K on a car today or spending an extra $10K on a Maverick Hybrid that costs $20K. 

 

Spending money on new ICE or HEVs is stupid at this moment-say a new program starts this year for an I6-will Ford actually be able to make money off it by 2030, since all the programs outside of the ICE F-150 will offer an BEV by then? Ford would be better just sticking with what it has now and just ride it out till it dies.

 

The CAFE requirements are getting more stringent-its supposed to go up to 26% from today come 2026...I'm sure that the 2029 regulations will be even more stringent and require even more BEVs to be able to make it. So that further crimps whatever savings HEVs can make. 

Once again it boils down to nuances-lots of things can change in the next 12 years. I don't think the affordability issue will be as big of a deal as it is today. Just as an example, we will have 20 times the amount of battery production in the USA in 2030 then we had in 2021.

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1271-january-2-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-manufacturing-capacity#:~:text=A wave of new planned,production between 2025 and 2030.

There will be enough battery production in the USA alone in 2030 to support producing 10-13 million autos a year. I think the average sales are anywhere between 9-17 million a year depending on the economy etc. 

Apparently GM doesn’t think it’s “stupid” to spend money on ICE.

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42746723/why-gm-is-launching-a-new-small-block-v8/
 

When ICE sells many multiples compared to BEV and makes all your profits (and will for years) it is smart not to let your products wither on the vine. 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Apparently GM doesn’t think it’s “stupid” to spend money on ICE.

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42746723/why-gm-is-launching-a-new-small-block-v8/
 

When ICE sells many multiples compared to BEV and makes all your profits (and will for years) it is smart not to let your products wither on the vine. 

 

How many V8s has GM come out with over the past 20 years that they are no longer manufacturing? The "new" V8 appears to be a 6th gen engine based off tooling from almost 70 years ago. I wouldn't call that exactly a resounding success that your claiming to be.

[Trader 10]

43 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

How many V8s has GM come out with over the past 20 years that they are no longer manufacturing? The "new" V8 appears to be a 6th gen engine based off tooling from almost 70 years ago. I wouldn't call that exactly a resounding success that your claiming to be.

I didn’t suggest anything was a resounding success in that post, but I don’t know how you couldn’t call the small Block Chevy a huge success over the years. It puts out as much power as the way bigger and more complicated OHC V-8s that you know have to be much more expensive to build. Ford would have been much better off developing its OHV V8s rather than replace them with the modular V8 30 years ago. My point was GM is investing nearly a billion dollars in a new version of its V-8. It recognizes that demand for V8 engines will be strong for another 10 to 15 years or more. 

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

How many V8s has GM come out with over the past 20 years that they are no longer manufacturing? The "new" V8 appears to be a 6th gen engine based off tooling from almost 70 years ago. I wouldn't call that exactly a resounding success that your claiming to be.

 

After the original flathead Ford V8, the small-block Chevy is probably the most important American V8 ever made.  Millions upon millions made.  The basic architecture is 70 years old and counting.  Pretty damn impressive.

[silvrsvt]

9 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

 My point was GM is investing nearly a billion dollars in a new version of its V-8. It recognizes that demand for V8 engines will be strong for another 10 to 15 years or more. 

And Ford came out with the 7.3 and 6.8L V8 recently…

 

Yes there is going to be a need for ICE, but in the next few years coming out with a new engine architecture (which the GM V-8 isn’t) is foolish. 
 

apparently GM has gotten that memo and has killed off their rumored I6 turbo engine 

 

https://jalopnik.com/gm-cancels-rumored-turbo-straight-six-engine-1850194467

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Apparently GM doesn’t think it’s “stupid” to spend money on ICE.

 

https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42746723/why-gm-is-launching-a-new-small-block-v8/
 

When ICE sells many multiples compared to BEV and makes all your profits (and will for years) it is smart not to let your products wither on the vine. 

It will be interesting to see what new technology GM introduces in the new version of V8, and also how much more fuel efficient they may be able to make it.  The quote below regarding challenges in electrifying larger vehicles is most interesting.  If much of ICE profits come from larger trucks and SUVs, and they happen to be most difficult to electrify at a reasonable cost, then it follows that electrification will be especially challenging for GM, Ford, and RAM.
 

 

“The battery-electric market could eventually extend to more trucks and large SUVs, but Smith says these larger vehicles “present some challenge with regard (to) battery size and battery cost. Even if battery cost continues to decline and battery energy power continues to increase, it’s still not a great match.””

[silvrsvt]

31 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It will be interesting to see what new technology GM introduces in the new version of V8, and also how much more fuel efficient they may be able to make it.

They are only targeting a 5% increase.

 

So that would work out to almost 1 combined MPG increase for the 5.2L and , but apparently they are looking at cutting emissions by 1/2 with it. It puts out slight more CO2 then the 2.7L Ecoboost does...but the Ecoboost has a significant improvement in EPA MPG vs the current 5.2L and 6.2L

I couldn't find anything on the new Ford 6.2 and 5.8L V8s due them being in the Super Duty and they weighing too much fo be on the Fueleconomy.gov site for info, since they don't "count"

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

And Ford came out with the 7.3 and 6.8L V8 recently…

 

Yes there is going to be a need for ICE, but in the next few years coming out with a new engine architecture (which the GM V-8 isn’t) is foolish. 
 

apparently GM has gotten that memo and has killed off their rumored I6 turbo engine 

 

https://jalopnik.com/gm-cancels-rumored-turbo-straight-six-engine-1850194467

Isn't the upcoming Mustang 4-cylinder an all-new engine?  Don’t know if that qualifies as new architecture but shows ICE R&D isn’t dead yet.

 

I realize car guys are biased towards power and performance, but expect the average or typical buyer doesn’t view 500 HP twin-turbo inline-6 (like the new Stellantis) the same way.  I would love a naturally aspirated inline-6 as long as it had adequate power but wouldn’t buy a twin turbo version.  Ford has been very successful with V6 twin-turbo EcoBoost, but if I need that much power, I prefer a V8.  Fuel savings don’t justify added complexity for me.  Perhaps GM came to same conclusion with new twin-turbo I-6 versus new V8?  Report doesn’t confirm the engine even existed, and can’t confirm it has been cancelled, so not much there to start with.

 

I expect future ICE development will be focused more on fuel economy, so think new Atkinson engine is needed more for hybrid applications.  A long-stroke naturally-aspirated Atkinson I-6 may have greater mass appeal for larger hybrid SUVs and pickups.  A GM twin-turbo I-6 would seem mostly limited to ICE-only applications, so maybe not a wise investment at this point.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Isn't the upcoming Mustang 4-cylinder an all-new engine?  Don’t know if that qualifies as new architecture but shows ICE R&D isn’t dead yet.

 

I realize car guys are biased towards power and performance, but expect the average or typical buyer doesn’t view 500 HP twin-turbo inline-6 (like the new Stellantis) the same way.  I would love a naturally aspirated inline-6 as long as it had adequate power but wouldn’t buy a twin turbo version.  Ford has been very successful with V6 twin-turbo EcoBoost, but if I need that much power, I prefer a V8.  Fuel savings don’t justify added complexity for me.  Perhaps GM came to same conclusion with new twin-turbo I-6 versus new V8?  Report doesn’t confirm the engine even existed, and can’t confirm it has been cancelled, so not much there to start with.

 

I expect future ICE development will be focused more on fuel economy, so think new Atkinson engine is needed more for hybrid applications.  A long-stroke naturally-aspirated Atkinson I-6 may have greater mass appeal for larger hybrid SUVs and pickups.  A GM twin-turbo I-6 would seem mostly limited to ICE-only applications, so maybe not a wise investment at this point.

Define all "new engine" is the thing you need to identify-the 2.3L might have a new head and other things, but most likely uses the existing tooling to make the blocks, just like the 4.6L modular becoming the 5.0L coyote. 
 

The point is that we are arguing past one another-If your starting development of a new ICE that won't see the light of day till after 2025, you might want to think twice about it because the window of profitability for it is going to rapidly shrink after that point.

 

As for the complexity comments-the vast majority of buyers don't really care about that-as long as it lasts 10-15 years without any major issues. I get fleet buyers will want something less complex due to them maintaining them. 

 

Fuel savings will become increasing important as time goes on-burning gas creates CO2, so if your burning more gas your creating more CO2. The high performance we are seeing out of engines is due to them being more efficient in power generation from using turbos etc..I haven't noticed anyone creating a detuned engine in the past 10-15 years because it gets better MPGs 

 

 

[Rick73]

56 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Define all "new engine" is the thing you need to identify-the 2.3L might have a new head and other things, but most likely uses the existing tooling to make the blocks, just like the 4.6L modular becoming the 5.0L coyote. 

Ford called it “all new”.  You can interpret as you wish; I rarely debate semantics.

 

Based on cylinder bore diameter of new 2.3L, I expect that the bore spacing is tighter than that of the outgoing Mustang 2.3L engine.  If that is the case, and I don’t know for sure, it would not be quite comparable to 4.6L versus 5.0L which both share 100 mm bore spacing.  However, the new Mustang 2.3L may be based on some other previous engine architecture from Europe that I’m not familiar with, so may not be “all-new” in that context.  Loosely it appears based on stroked 2.0L 4-cylinder or 1.5L 3-cylinder.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

However, the new Mustang 2.3L may be based on some other previous engine architecture from Europe that I’m not familiar with, so may not be “all-new” in that context.  Loosely it appears based on stroked 2.0L 4-cylinder or 1.5L 3-cylinder.

 

The current 2.3L shares its tooling with the 2.0 and 1.5L I4. 

 

At the moment there isn't much info on the new Mustang 2.3L-this is what I found on a Mustang Forum about it

If I am correct, some references...

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2024-ford-mustang-engine-ecoboost-v-8-deep-dive/

"Oh, and that MPC stands for Modular Power Cylinder, which refers to the combustion chamber shape, valve and injector orientation, piston dome, etc., all of which get engineered and optimized once and applied to a family of engines (in this case, inline three- and four-cylinders)."

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/heres-why-modular-engines-are-worth-the-hype

"The term “Modular” isn’t a reference to parts interchangeability, but rather, it refers to the engine as a nearly square bore with a bore of 90.2mm and a stroke of 90.0mm. When the engine was introduced, it was the only V8 produced in the United States to have an overhead cam valvetrain, with the exception of the limited-production Corvette ZR1."

 

So the first link says to me that it has a new head and a new piston...the block stays the same. 

 

[Rick73]

Ford specs show outgoing 2.3L at 87.5 mm bore and 94 mm stroke.

 

Ford specs also show new 2.3L at 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke.

Displacements are essentially identical, but new engine could be using common 90 mm bore spacing, whereas previous 2.3L could not.  I don’t know what tooling they may or may not share.  I haven’t seen data at that level of detail yet.

[Trader 10]

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

And Ford came out with the 7.3 and 6.8L V8 recently…

 

Yes there is going to be a need for ICE, but in the next few years coming out with a new engine architecture (which the GM V-8 isn’t) is foolish. 
 

apparently GM has gotten that memo and has killed off their rumored I6 turbo engine 

 

https://jalopnik.com/gm-cancels-rumored-turbo-straight-six-engine-1850194467

I imagine GM decided that there would be no need for the NG small block and the I-6 which likely would have had similiar output and fuel economy numbers. Plus the turbo I-6 would likely be more expensive to build. I doubt the rumored I-6 would have been an all new engine. It probably would have shared bore spacing and maybe tooling from GM’s I-5 and I-6 family of 15 years or so ago.